Bangalore District Court
Mo Azad vs Go Digit General Insurance Limited on 23 April, 2026
SCCH-21 1 MVC No.5516/2024
KABC0B0015862024
IN THE COURT OF XVII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES & MEMBER, M.A.C.T,
MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (SCCH-21)
PRESENT: Vijaykumar S. Hiremath.,
LL.B.,
XVII ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & Member,
M.A.C.T., Bengaluru.
Dated this the 23rd Day of April-2026
M.V.C. No.5516/2024
Petitioner/s: 1. Mr. Mo Azad
S/o Kashim Ali,
Aged about 34 years,
Residing at :- Kashim Ali,
Bradhiyai Bazar, Khalilabad,
Sant Kabir Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh-272175.
(By Sri. T. Manjunatha, Adv.,)
Vs.
Respondent/s: 1. M/s. Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Motor Claims Hub,
Consulate No.1 Second Floor,
Richmond Road, Shanthala Nagar,
Ashokanagar, Bangalore-560 025.
(Policy No. D128107397/17122023
Valid Upto: 19.12.2023 to 18.12.2024)
(By Smt. Shwetha V. Yadappanavar,
Adv.,)
SCCH-21 2 MVC No.5516/2024
2. Mr. Dhanesh. K. V
S/o Vasudevan. K. V
No.11 9/1, Prakash Reddy Layout,
Doddanakundi Post, Bangalore-560 037.
(Owner of the Motor Cycle No. KA-03-KJ-
3400)
(By Sri. Srirama, Adv.,)
3. Mr. Kottaratha Valappil Vijesh
S/o Vasudevan,
No.11 9/1, Prakash Reddy Layout,
Doddanakundi Post, Near Govt. School,
Bangalore-560 037.
[Insured of the Motorcycle No. KA-03-KJ-
3400]
(By Sri. Srirama, Adv.,)
4. M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
Ltd.,
Second SVR Complex, Hosur Main Road,
Bangalore-560 068.
(By Sri. Gururaj Salur, Adv.,)
Date of institution of the : 29.07.2024
petition
Nature of the Petition : U/Sec.166 of M. V. Act
Date of commencement of : 05.08.2025
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 23.04.2026
was pronounced
Duration of the Petition Year/s Month/s Day/s
01 08 10
SCCH-21 3 MVC No.5516/2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the accidental injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident took place on 30.05.2024.
2. The Brief facts of the petitioner's case is as under:
It is the case of the petitioner that on 30.05.2024 at about 00.20 a.m., the petitioner was crossing the road, observing the traffic rules, on Mahadevapura Ring Road, Doddanekundi Bridge, Service Road, Bangalore City, at that time motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-03-KJ- 3400 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, without following any traffic rules, came at high speed and dashed to the petitioner. Due to forced impact, petitioner fell down and sustained several grievous injuries on vital parts of the body. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Kauvery Hospital for first aid, thereafter shifted to Dr. B. R. SCCH-21 4 MVC No.5516/2024 Ambedkar Medical college & Hospital and admitted as inpatient and petitioner has spent more than Rs.6,00,000/- towards medical expenses, food, nourishment and conveyance charges.
The petitioner further submitted that, prior to the accident he was heal and healthy and aged about 34 years, the petitioner was working as Painter and earning Rs.1,000/- per day. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident the petitioner has become permanently disabled and unable to look after the said work. Respondent No.1 to 4 are the insurers and owners of the motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-03-KJ-3400. Hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition for a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest.
3. After service of notice, all the respondents appeared through their counsels and filed their respective written statements.
SCCH-21 5 MVC No.5516/2024
The respondent No.1 in its written statement denied the allegations made in the plaint and submitted that, it is found that the third respondent has taken a Digit two-wheeler package policy to vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-03-KJ-3400 through phone-pe insurance broking services private limited. Respondent No.3 is neither the owner nor the authorized representative of the owner of the vehicle to purchase the insurance policy for vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-03-KJ-3400. It is further submitted that, respondent No.2 or 3 have not informed this respondent with regard to theft of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-03-KJ-3400. Hence, this respondent is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.2 and 3 and the said petition is liable to be dismissed against this respondent. Further, the driver of vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-03-KJ-3400 was not holding a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of the alleged accident. It is further contended that, the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-03-KJ-3400 was being used by the owner of the vehicle without holding valid fitness SCCH-21 6 MVC No.5516/2024 certificate at the time of alleged accident. This respondent submits that, the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-03-KJ-3400 was not involved in the alleged accident.
The respondent No.2 in its written statement denied the allegations made in the plaint and admitted that, respondent No.2 is the owner of the Honda Dio Scooter bearing Reg. No. KA-03-KJ-3400 and submitted that, it is insured with the respondent No.4. The scooter parked inside the compound of the house was missing and he went to the jurisdictional HAL Police Station on 02.06.2024 at about 10 A.M and reported about the theft but the police did not register his complaint, asking him to wait for a few days as they were confident that they would be able to trace the vehicle. As the police did not register his complaint, the third respondent namely Sri. K. V. Vijesh, lodged a theft complaint in the E-portal of the KSP App of the Karnataka State Police and subsequently an FIR was registered on 10.06.2024 as Crime No. 0481/2024 by HAL Police Station. SCCH-21 7 MVC No.5516/2024
The respondent No.4 in its written statement denied the allegations made in the plaint and admitted that, policy of insurance issued in respect of motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-03-KJ-3400 as on the date of accident. It is submitted that, as on the date of accident this respondent has not issued any policy for the said vehicle. The vehicle in question, i.e., motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-03-KJ-3400 was not at all involved in the alleged accident, the same has been implicated in order to get wrongful gain and to make wrongful loss to this respondent. It is further submitted that, the entire police records are manipulated by showing the registration number of motorcycle and seasoned professional have joined hands with the petitioner. The alleged motorcycle was a theft vehicle and at the time of alleged accident it was not in the custody of the third respondent. Hence, the policy does not cover any risk and this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.
Further all the respondents denied the age, occupation and income of the petitioner. The petitioner SCCH-21 8 MVC No.5516/2024 colluding with the police filed the false case. By these reasons, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, following issues are framed:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he is the victim of the motor vehicle accident caused by the rider of motorcycle bearing Reg.
No. KA-03-KJ-3400 at about 00.20 a.m., Mahadevapura Ring Road, Doddanekundi Bridge, Service road, Bangalore and sustained injuries as pleaded in the petition?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What order or Award?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. Whether respondent No.1 proved that, respondent No.2 and 3 violated the terms and conditions of the policy?
5. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, he got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.15 and examined Dr. SCCH-21 9 MVC No.5516/2024 Nagaraj B. N as PW.2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.16 and P.17 and also examined MRD at Kauvery Hospital as PW.3 and got marked documents at Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.21 and closed their side. On the other hand, respondent No.1 examined its Associate Manager as RW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2 and also examined Head-constable, Mahadevapura Traffic Police Station as RW.2 and respondent No.4 examined its Legal Manager as RW.3 and got marked the documents at Ex.R.3 and Ex.R.4.
6. Heard arguments of both the sides and perused the materials placed on record.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under;
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Addl. Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the affirmative.
Issue No.3 : As per final order,
for the following:
SCCH-21 10 MVC No.5516/2024
:REASONS:
8. ISSUE No.1: The petitioner has contended that on the above said date, time and place he met with accident and sustained grievous injuries occurred due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of offending vehicle.
9. The petitioner who is injured in this accident has got examined himself as PW-1 by reiterating the averments made in the petition. He has produced the documents at Ex.P.1 to 15. Ex.P.1 is the FIR, Ex.P.2 is the Complaint, Ex.P.3 is the Spot Mahazar, Ex.P.4 is the Sketch, Ex.P.5 is the IMV Report, Ex.P.6 is the Wound Certificate, Ex.P.7 is the Notice U/s 133 of M. V. Act, Ex.P.8 is the Reply Notice, Ex.P.9 is the Charge-sheet, Ex.P.10 to 12 are the Discharge Summaries, Ex.P.13 is the Notarized copy of Aadhar Card, Ex.P.14 is the Medical Bills and Ex.P.15 is the Prescriptions.SCCH-21 11 MVC No.5516/2024
10. On the other hand, respondents got examined its Associate Manager as RW.1 and produced documents marked at Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2 and also examined Head-constable, Mahadevapura Traffic Police Station as RW.2 and respondent No.4 examined its Legal Manager as RW.3 and got marked the documents at Ex.R.3 and Ex.R.4.
11. The burden is upon the petitioner to prove that, the accident occurred due to negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle. Ex.P.1 to 9 are the only documents, which are to be scrutinized to arrive at conclusion- whether the accident was owing to the negligent manner of riding of the rider of offending vehicle. The Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 (spot panchanama and sketch), clearly discloses the place of accident and that the police, after registering the First Information, held investigation and filed the Ex.P.9, Charge-Sheet against the rider of offending vehicle U/s. 279 and 338 of IPC R/w Sec.134(a&b), 187 of M. V. Act. The Ex.P.5 i.e., certified copy of the SCCH-21 12 MVC No.5516/2024 IMV Report discloses that, the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle in question.
12. It must be noted that, in the cross-
examination of PW.1, it is suggested by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 4 that, the accident had not happened because of the negligence on the part the driver of offending vehicle, but witness denied the said suggestion. No matter whether PW.1 admits the said suggestion or not, but in my opinion, the said suggestion is sufficient to conclude that, respondent No.1 and 4 has admitted the accident. In other words, it is well settled that, suggestion is the reflection of the case of the opponent. Therefore, in my view, by posing a suggestion to the effect that, the accident not had occurred because of the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle, the respondent No.1 and 4 have admitted that, the accident in question had happened.
SCCH-21 13 MVC No.5516/2024
13. The next question would be, on whose fault accident has occurred. This question arises because respondents have raised the specific defence that, the alleged accident has happened due to the negligence of the petitioner and he himself crossed the road where there is no zebra-crossing. Thus, the question would be whether this say of the contesting respondents can be accepted or not. But except denying the negligence on the part of rider of the motorcycle, respondents have not produced any evidence before the Court that, despite existence of zebra-crossing petitioner crossed the road. In addition to that, there is no documents before the Court to show that, existence of zebra- cross near the accident spot. The materials available on record clearly shows that, the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent act of the rider of the motorcycle.
SCCH-21 14 MVC No.5516/2024
14. The next question would be, whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident or not. It must be noted that, the Ex.P.6 i.e., Wound Certificate shows that, the petitioner was admitted to Kauvery Hospital on 30.05.2024. Further, Wound Certificate shows that, the injury sustained by the petitioner is grievous in nature. Further, in the said Wound Certificate it is mentioned that, petitioner admitted to the hospital with alleged history of RTA. These facts are not denied by the contesting respondents. Hence, these facts are sufficient to conclude that, petitioner has sustained injuries in the accident caused by the rash and negligent riding by the rider of motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-03- KJ-3400. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in the affirmative.
15. ISSUE No.2 AND ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.1: These two issues are inter linked. Hence, taken together for common discussion. The SCCH-21 15 MVC No.5516/2024 petitioner in his evidence has specifically deposed that, after the accident he was shifted to Kauvery Hospital, wherein he took treatment as inpatient. Petitioner has stated in the petition that, he is undergoing deep mental shock, severe pain and sufferings. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads:
16. PAIN AND SUFFERING: In the petition as well as in his evidence PW.1 deposed that, after the accident petitioner was shifted to Kauvery Hospital, wherein he was admitted as inpatient on 30.05.2024 then shifted to Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Medical College and Hospital from 30.05.2024 to 08.06.2024 and then shifted to Vivekananda Orthopaedic & Maternity Centre from 16.03.2025 to 21.03.2025 i.e., totally for 15 days. The petitioner has produced the discharge summary marked at Ex.P.10 to 12, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner was admitted in the Dr. B. R. Ambedkar SCCH-21 16 MVC No.5516/2024 Medical College and Hospital and then shifted to Vivekananda Orthopaedic & Maternity Centre, wherein he was admitted as inpatient for totally 15 days. He has produced the wound certificate marked at Ex.P.6, which reveals that, petitioner has sustained intracranial bleed with diffuse axonal injury, compound grade II left side distal third shaft tibial fracture and the doctor has opined that the injuries are grievous in nature. Hence, it is clear that during the above said period the petitioner suffered lot of pain and inconvenience. Considering all these aspects this tribunal has granted Rs.50,000/- under the head of pain and suffering.
17. MEDICAL EXPENSES: The petitioner has pleaded in the petition that he has spent huge amount towards medical expenses. However in support of his plea, he has produced medical bills which is marked at Ex.P.14 to the tune of SCCH-21 17 MVC No.5516/2024 Rs.1,30,751/-. Hence, looking to the injuries sustained and treatment taken by the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,30,751/- towards medical expenses.
18. LOSS OF INCOME DURING THE LAID UP PERIOD: The petitioner has produced Ex.P.10 to Ex.P.12 Discharge summary issued by Kauvery Hospital, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Medical College and Hospital and Vivekananda Orthopaedic & Maternity Centre, it reveals that, the petitioner took treatment from the said hospitals for about 15 days. Hence, at least 02 month is required to recover from the accidental injuries. It is the further contended that, the injured petitioner was working as Painter and earning Rs.1,000/- per day, but in support of his income he has not produced any single document. So, in the absence of any evidence in respect of the income of the petitioner, the petitioner might have monthly income at Rs.16,500/- as per the Hon'ble SCCH-21 18 MVC No.5516/2024 High Court of Karnataka fixed notional income of the year 2024 at Rs.16,500/- per month for determination of income before Lok-Adalat for the Districts coming under the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru Bench. The accident is of the year is 2024. Hence, the income of the petitioner is considered as Rs.16,500/- p.m. as per above decision. Hence, 02 month is to be considered as loss of income. Hence, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.33,000/- under this head.
19. Towards loss of future earning capacity on account of Permanent Physical Disability-
The petitioner to prove his disability, he has produced the evidence of Dr. Nagaraj B. N in order to substantiate the same, PW.2 has produced documents marked at Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.17. Admittedly, the PW.2 is not a treated doctor. He was SCCH-21 19 MVC No.5516/2024 sworn that, petitioner has got Disability of 14% to the whole body, but he has not issued the disability certificate. During the course of cross-examination PW.3 Dr. Nagaraj B. N admits that, fracture is united and implants are removed and further deposed that, with this disability petitioner can do painter job with great difficulty.
Considering the nature of injuries, line of treatment and on appreciation of the clinical findings noted by the doctor and evidence given by the petitioner himself before the Court, the possibility of the fact that the petitioner may be having economical or functional disability to the extent of 8%, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, this Tribunal consider the functional disability of the petitioner at 8%. Further, the petitioner also examined the Medical Record Technician at Manipal Hospital as PW.3, who is Medical Record In-charge and deposed and produced only medical documents and his evidence is formal in nature.
SCCH-21 20 MVC No.5516/2024
Before proceeding on merits of the claim the age of the petitioner/injured has to be determined. Ex.P.13 is the Aadhar Card of the petitioner, wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 01.01.1989 and accident took place in the year 2024. Accordingly, I assess his age as 34 years at the time of this accident. As per the ruling reported in AIR 2009 SCW page-3014 between SARLA VERAMA AND OTHERS VS DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS, the relevant multiplier applicable is '16'. Hence Rs.16,500 X 12 X 16 X 8% = 2,53,440/-. Under this head the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.2,53,440/-.
20. FOOD, CONVEYANCE, NOURISHMENT AND ATTENDANT CHARGES:
Further the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and took treatment as inpatient in Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Medical College and Hospital from 30.05.2024 to 08.06.2024 and then shifted to SCCH-21 21 MVC No.5516/2024 Vivekananda Ortho-paedic & Maternity Centre from 16.03.2025 to 21.03.2025 i.e., totally for 15 days.
Hence, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of nutritious food and attendant charges.
21. LOSS OF FUTURE AMENITIES AND HAPPINESS: The petitioner was aged about 34 years at the time of accident, he has sustained grievous injuries. However he might have suffered lot of pain and loss of amenities and comforts in life. Therefore, considering the age, nature of injuries and fracture, Rs.20,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of future amenities and happiness.
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation under the following heads:
1 Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs. 1,30,751/-
3 Loss of future earning, Rs. 2,53,440/-
Disability SCCH-21 22 MVC No.5516/2024 4 Loss of earnings during laid Rs. 33,000/-
up period 5 Nutritious food and Rs. 40,000/-
attendant charges 6 Loss of future amenities and Rs. 20,000/-
loss of happiness
Total Rs. 5,27,191/-
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,27,191/- under various heads.
22. LIABILITY: In view of above discussion in Issue No.1, this Tribunal opine that, accident had happened due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-03-KJ- 3400. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that, respondents have not made any efforts to prove that, the rider of the offending vehicle rode the said vehicle without having valid and effective driving license. Further he argued that, both respondent No.1 and 4 have issued the Insurance Policy in respect of offending vehicle and same were valid as SCCH-21 23 MVC No.5516/2024 on the date of accident. Hence, on these grounds he argued that, respondent No.1 and 4 being the insurer of the offending vehicle are equally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has argued that, the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., respondent No.2 has already taken the bundled policy from respondent No.4 and same is valid from 03.12.2021 to 02.12.2026, but by misrepresentation respondent No.3 has obtained 2-wheeler policy from his company without disclosing the material facts of existing policy. On behalf of respondent No.1 its Manager by name Valabhai Patel examined as RW.1 and reiterated the contents of its written statement.
Further learned counsel for respondent No.4 argued that, owner of the offending vehicle given his vehicle to the rider who was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle. As such, owner of the offending vehicle SCCH-21 24 MVC No.5516/2024 violated the terms of policy and thereby respondent No.4 is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. In support of his argument, he relied upon the decision reported in Hon'ble Apex Court i.e., Spl. Leave Petition(Civil) No.11757/2025 between Mahaveer Vs. the Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and others.
Further one witness by name Roshini i.e., legal Manager of respondent No.4 is examined as RW.3. She deposed that, as on the date of accident the rider of the vehicle rode the same without having valid and effective driving license. Further, respondent No.4 also examined Investigating Officer i.e., Ravi Kumar as RW.2. During his examination-in-chief he deposed about the conducting of investigation and submission of final report before the concerned Court. During his cross-examination he admits that, he has not collected the driving license of rider of 2-wheeler. Further he also admits that, they have not traced SCCH-21 25 MVC No.5516/2024 the accused i.e., rider of the offending vehicle during his investigation.
In view of above evidence, it goes to show that, despite raising defence in respect of non- production of Driving License, the owner of the offending vehicle has not taken any pain to produce the driving license. Though Investigation Officer i.e., RW.2, in his evidence depose that, as on the date of accident the offending vehicle was not in the possession of the owner of the offending vehicle, as someone has stolen the vehicle. But in order to substantiate the said fact, neither the owner of the offending vehicle nor Investigation Officer has furnished the documents before the Court. Moreover, there is no document on record to show that, immediately after theft of his vehicle, owner of the offending vehicle has intimated the said fact to the respondent No.1 or 4. As such, in view of above discussion this Court opine that, as on the date of accident rider of the offending vehicle was not SCCH-21 26 MVC No.5516/2024 having valid License.
In the above decision i.e., Spl. Leave Petition(Civil) No.11757/2025 between Mahaveer Vs. the Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and others, Hon'ble Apex Court at para No.4 observed as follows,
4. What assumes significance in the above case is that despite the owner of the vehicle having been a party before the tribunal, no evidence was given. The owner did not mount the box nor was any license produced either of the person who was driving the vehicle or the person to whom it was entrusted. The owner thus failed to prove that the vehicle was entrusted to a person having valid license. with above observation, Hon'ble Apex Court dismiss the Spl. Leave Petition. As such, in view of observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court if owner of offending vehicle party to the proceedings fails to furnish the driving license of the offending vehicle, then in such eventuality the liability of the SCCH-21 27 MVC No.5516/2024 insurer is absolved. Admittedly, in this case owner of the offending vehicle not produced driving license of the offending vehicle. As such, the above decision is aptly applicable to the present case in hand. Hence, insurance companies (respondent No.1 and
4) are not liable to pay the compensation as claimed. Hence, in view of above discussion, the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered in the partly affirmative and Additional Issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
23. ISSUE No.3: In view of above discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
:ORDER:
The petition filed by the Petitioner under Sec.166 of I.M.V Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is awarded with
compensation of Rs.5,27,191/- with
SCCH-21 28 MVC No.5516/2024
interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of
petition till its realization.
The respondent No.2 being owner of
the vehicle involved in an accident is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the above compensation amount with interest thereon before Tribunal within two months from the date of this award.
In the event of deposit of total compensation amount of petitioner, entire amount shall be released in his favour along with interest thereon on proper identification.
After deposit of compensation amount with interest thereon, disburse amount as mentioned above as per guidelines laid down by Hon'ble High Court in MFA No. 2509/2019 (ECA) and as per General Circular No.2/2019 dated:19.08.2019.
The petitioner is hereby directed to produce particulars of his Bank Account, with name of Bank, IFSC Code, Account Number with copy of First Page of Bank Pass Book which contains compulsorily photograph of petitioner, which is duly SCCH-21 29 MVC No.5516/2024 attested by concerned Bank. Further petitioner shall produce PAN Card/Adhar Card.
In case of deposit of awarded
amount, the petitioner is entitled to
receive amount as mentioned above after expiry of period provided for filing an appeal.
The advocate fee is fixed at
Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award Accordingly.
[Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court on this the 23 rd Day of April - 2026] Digitally signed by VIJAYKUMAR VIJAYKUMAR HIREMATH S S HIREMATH Date:
+0530 2026.04.27 15:44:25 (VIJAYKUMAR S. HIREMATH) XVII ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & Member, M.A.C.T., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PETITIONER: PW-1 : Mo Azad PW-2 : Dr. Nagaraj B. N PW-3 : Ajith Kumar DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PETITIONER:
Ex.P-1 : FIR
Ex.P-2 : Complaint
Ex.P-3 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P-4 : Sketch
SCCH-21 30 MVC No.5516/2024
Ex.P-5 : IMV Report
Ex.P-6 : Wound certificate
Ex.P-7 : Notice U/s 133 of M. V. Act
Ex.P-8 : Reply Notice
Ex.P-9 : Charge-sheet
Ex.P-10-12 : Discharge Summaries
Ex.P-13 : Notarized copy of Aadhar Card
Ex.P-14 : Medical Bills
Ex.P-15 : Prescriptions
Ex.P-16 : Clinical examination report
Ex.P-17 : X-ray
Ex.P-18 : Authorization Letter
Ex.P-19 : C/c of MLC
Ex.P-20 : C/c of Police Intimation
Ex.P-21 : Inpatient Record
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENTS:
RW.1 : Vallabha Bai Patil RW.2 : Ravi Kumar RW.3 : Roshni Ashwitha
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R.1 : Authorization Letter
Ex.R.2 : Copy of policy
Ex.R.3 : Authorization Letter
Ex.R.4 : Copy of policy
Digitally signed by
VIJAYKUMAR VIJAYKUMAR S
S HIREMATH
Date: 2026.04.27
HIREMATH 15:44:17 +0530
(VIJAYKUMAR S. HIREMATH)
XVII ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small
Causes & Member, M.A.C.T., Bengaluru.