Bangalore District Court
Subramani vs K. Anil Kumar on 3 October, 2025
KABC020289592021
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU. (SCCH-_25)
-: PRESENT:-
PRESENT: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA. R,
B.A.L, LL.B.,
XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
MVC No.4958/2021
PETITIONER/s: Sri. Subramani
S/o. Gattappa,
Aged about 41 years,
R/at: Bangavadi,
Hebbani, Kolar,
Karnataka-563131.
(By Sri. Amaresha N.,
Advocate/s)
V/S
RESPONDENT/s: 1. Sri.K.Anil Kumar
S/o. K. Veerappa,
R/at: Kdathatlapalle Village,
Kadapanatham Post,
Bairddipalli, Chittoor,
Andhra Pradesh-517415.
(RC Owner of Motor Cycle
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.4958/2021
bearing Reg.No.AP-03-BB-
6491)
(Ex-parte)
2. Chola M.S General
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Unit 4, 9th Floor,
Golden Heights, 59th C
Cross Industrial Suburb,
4th M Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 010.
(Policy No: 3361/01922634/000/00
Valid from 05/01/21 to 04/01/22)
(By Sri. Maheshwara,
Advocate.)
JUDGMENT
This judgment arise out of claim petition filed by the claimant against respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "Act") praying for awarding compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident that occurred on 19.06.2021 at about 09.00pm.
2. The case of the claimant in nutshell is that:
On 19.06.2021 at about 09.00pm the petitioner was proceeding in his Super XL TVS from SCCH-25 3 MVC No.4958/2021 Punganuru to Mulbagal side by observing all the traffic rules, while so proceeding another motorcycle bearing Reg.No.AP-03-BB-6491 came from Mulbagal (Opposite) side in a rash and negligent manner with excessive speed and dashed to the motorcycle in which the petitioner was proceeding. Due to impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that, immediately after the accident he was shifted to Gov. Hospital, Mulbagal, wherein provided first aid treatment and thereafter he was shifted to R.L.Jalappa Hospital, Kolar and thereafter he was shifted to NIMHANS, Bengaluru and finally he was admitted to S.N.R. District Hospital, Kolar wherein admitted as an inpatient, underwent surgery and discharged with advice to take treatment as outpatient. So far he has spent Rs.5,00,000/- towards hospital charges, medicines, attendant charges, conveyance, nourishing food and other incidental expenses. Due to the accidental injuries, he could not lead his normal life and become completely and permanently disabled and suffering with deformity.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that, Prior to SCCH-25 4 MVC No.4958/2021 the accident, petitioner was hale and healthy, doing Labor Work and earning Rs.30,000/- per month and was contributing his entire income for welfare and maintenance of his family. The said accident occurred due to sole rash and negligent riding by the rider of the Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.AP-03-BB- 6491 and Nangali Police have registered a case against the rider of the motorcycle in Cr.No.0069/2021 p/u/Secs.279, 337 of the IPC. The respondents being the RC owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner prayed to allow the petition and to grant compensation as prayed in the petition.
5. In spite of due service of summons, the respondent No.1 did not appear hence, placed exparte. In response to the notice, the respondent No.2 has appeared and filed written statement.
5A. The respondent No.2 has filed the written statement denying the entire petition averments except admitting the issuance of policy in favour of 1 st respondent in respect of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.AP-03-BB-64915 as on the date of accident.
SCCH-25 5 MVC No.4958/2021i.e., 19.06.2021. There is non compliance of Sec.34(c) and 158(6) of MV Act. It has denied the involvement of the motorcycle in the accident. Further stated that the petitioner himself was solely responsible for the alleged accident. Further stated that the motorcycle falsey implicated by the petitioner by colluding with the owner of the vehicle. There is 1 delay in lodging the complaint. Further the petitioner was not wearing helmet as on the date of accident. The rider of the offending motorcycle did not possess a valid DL as on the date of accident. Further denied the age, occupation, income, medical expenses etc., Further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive, exorbitant. Hence, this respondent prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed for determination.
Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner proves that, the accident occurred on 19.06.2021 at 09.00pm, due to rash and negligent riding of rider of Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.AP-03- BB-6491 and in the said accident petitioner sustained injuries?
Issue No.2: Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If yes, SCCH-25 6 MVC No.4958/2021 what is the quantum? From whom?
Issue No.3:- What order or Award?
7. In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Eight documents as Exs.P1 to P8. He has also got examined Sri.N.Shivareddy - Medical Record Officer at SNR District Hospital as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P9 to 11. Dr.Krishna Prasad A.H- Eye Surgeon got examined as PW.3 and got marked Ex.P.12. Dr.Girish G - Asst. Professor, Dept. of Maxillofacial surgery at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Bangalore got examined as PW.4 and got marked Exs.P.13 & 14. The respondent No.2 has got examined its official as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 & 2.
8. The Court has heard the arguments canvassed by both sides counsel.
8A: The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:
1. 2005 ACJ 644 : M.V.Chowdappa Vs. Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Ltd., and Anr.
2. 2011 ACJ 1971 : B. Kothandapani Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., SCCH-25 7 MVC No.4958/2021
3. SLP (c) No.22423/2024 : Jayanandan Vs. Varkey and Ors.
4. MACT No.604/2018 Delhi: Deepak Kumar Mishra Vs. Md. Zakir and Anr.
8B. The counsel for the Respondent No.2 has relied upon the following decisions:
1. Special leave to appeal No.14444/2025 (SC):
Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and Anr.
2. MFA 5171/2021 : Sri. Mahendra T.M. Vs. Sri. Shankara M And Anr.
3. MFA 7074/2016 (MV) : The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Sri. Naresh Babu N. And Anr.
8C. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted the written arguments.
9. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence let in before this tribunal, my answers to the above points are as follows:
Issue No.1 :In the affirmative, Issue No.2: Partly in affirmative. Issue No.3: As per final order, for the foregoing #REASONS#
10. Issue No.1: In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioner got SCCH-25 8 MVC No.4958/2021 examined himself as PW.1. The petitioner also got examined MRO at SNR District Hospital, Kolar as PW.2. Dr.Krishna Prasad A.H. got examined as PW.3 and also got examined Dr.Girish G as PW.4. Exs.P1 to 8 were marked through Pw.1 and Exs.P.9 to 14 were marked through Pws.2 to 4. The respondent No.2 has got examined its official as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 & 2. The details of the exhibits are given in the annexure of the judgment.
11. The petitioner has reiterated the petition averments in the chief examination affidavit. He has subjected to cross examination. In the cross examination, he has deposed that the complaint was lodged by his brother on the next day of accident. The bike belong to one Anil from Bydarapalli. The petitioner has denied other suggestions in the cross examination.
12. It is undisputed fact that the there was a delay in lodging the case. First information report and first information Statement or Complaint have disclosing the delay in presenting the complaint. At this juncture, it is beneficial to refer the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 1RAVI V/s. 1 (2011) 4 SCC 693 SCCH-25 9 MVC No.4958/2021 BADRINARAYAN AND OTHER The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "in accident cases, human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the Police Station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. In cases of delay, the Courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim cannot be dismissed merely on that ground although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases. Delay in lodging the claim should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. In such cases, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof."
13. In the light of the Judgment referred to supra in RAVI's case, it is manifestly clear delay in lodging the FIR cannot be the ground to deny justice SCCH-25 10 MVC No.4958/2021 to the victim. However, the claim has to be examined with a closer scrutiny, particularly the contents of the FIR. So, informant can't lodged the complaint as he was busy in hospital or in taking care of the injured person in the hospital, There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. In such cases, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof. It is well settled position of law that the proceedings under Motor Vehicle Act are summary in nature and it is beneficial legislation and the evidence required about negligence act is sufficient if it is in the nature of preponderance of probability.
14. It is the specific case of the insurer that the accident was occurred between two motor cycles and the petitioner has equally contributed to the accident. In this regard the insurer has examined their official. Before evaluating the evidence of the RW.1, it is worth to note herein that the insurer counsel has not suggested these things to PW.1 in the entire cross examination. The RW.1 has firmly deposed that the investigating officer has not properly investigated the matter. The insurer has not SCCH-25 11 MVC No.4958/2021 issued any notice to owner of the vehicle to ascertain the mode of accident. It is quite common that the insurance company have appointed the private investigating officer either to collect the documents or to investigate the matter. The RW.1 has not produced any material worth in this regard. It means they have simply denied the entire investigating process without placing a cogent and convincing evidence.
15. The petitioner has totally relied on the police documents to establish the negligence on the part of the offending vehicle's rider. It is no doubt the police have submitted the charge sheet against the rider of the offending motorcycle after thorough investigation. The spot mahazar has clearly indicates that the petitioner was proceeding from Punganur towards Mulabagilu Narayanapura Village between Ananthapura footpath gate the rider of the offending vehicle which has come from Mulabagal towards Punganur with a high speed and hit the petitioner's motorcycle. It is undisputed fact that the police have submitted that charge sheet against the rider of the offending vehicle for the offense punishable under section 279, 337 & 338 of IPC.
SCCH-25 12 MVC No.4958/202116. The materials are clearly depicts that the offending vehicle coming from opposite direction but the accident was occurred due to negligent act of the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle was almost right side of the road which towards Punganuru. In other words the offending motorcycle has hit the petitioner while petitioner was proceeding on the extreme left side of the road. If the rider of the opposite motorcycle rider have taken minimal care and caution, the accident would have been postponed or not occurred. The oral evidence of the petitioner has coupled with documentary evidence. Though the accident was occurred between two vehicle, I have not found any grounds to hold there was contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in a decision 22018 (5) SCC 656 held "24. It will be useful to advert to the dictum in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal [N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 774] , wherein it was contended by the vehicle owner that the criminal case in relation to the accident had ended in acquittal and for which reason the claim under the Motor 2 Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., SCCH-25 13 MVC No.4958/2021 Vehicles Act ought to be rejected. This Court negatived the said argument by observing that the nature of proof required to establish culpable rashness, punishable under IPC, is more stringent than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to create liability. The observation made in para 3 of the judgment would throw some light as to what should be the approach of the Tribunal in motor accident cases. The same reads thus :
"3. Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasising this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their neighbor. Indeed, the State must seriously consider no-fault liability by legislation. A second aspect which pains us is the inadequacy of the SCCH-25 14 MVC No.4958/2021 compensation or undue parsimony practiced by tribunals. We must remember that judicial tribunals are State organs and Article 41 of the Constitution lays the jurisprudential foundation for State relief against accidental disablement of citizens. There is no justification for niggardliness in compensation. A third factor which is harrowing is the enormous delay in disposal of accident cases resulting in compensation, even if awarded, being postponed by several year The States must appoint sufficient number of tribunals and the High Courts should insist upon quick disposals so that the trauma and tragedy already sustained may not be magnified by the injustice of delayed justice. Many States are unjustly indifferent in this regard."
25. In Dulcina Fernandes [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] , this Court examined similar situation where the evidence of claimant's eyewitness was discarded by the Tribunal and that the respondent in that case was acquitted in the criminal case concerning the accident. This Court, however, opined that it cannot be overlooked that upon investigation of the case registered against the respondent, prima facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial. The Court restated the settled principle that the evidence of the claimants ought to be examined by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied"
The Court cannot adopt strict liability as conducted SCCH-25 15 MVC No.4958/2021 in a criminal case to prove rash and negligence on the part of the rider of the respondent vehicle. But there should be prima-facie materials regarding rash and negligence to fix the owner and insurance company for payment of compensation. Therefore, a straight jacket formula cannot be adopted in accepting the rash and negligence on the part of the rider of the insured vehicle. The materials on records are clearly indicates that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of the offending vehicle i.e., AP-03-BB-6491. So, I answered issue No.1 in the affirmative
18. Issue No.2: The petitioner has produced the wound certificate and call the medical records from the concerned hospital. The wound certificate (Ex.P5) discloses that, the petitioner has sustained (i) Diffused fullue of face - tenderness over left and right maxilla, nasal bone. CT report from NIMHANS - Left frontal bone fracture with moderate level injury which are grievous in nature. In this regard, the petitioner has got examined DR.Krishna Prasad A.H. - Eye surgeon as PW.3. PW.3 has stated in his his chief examination that the petitioner has history of loss of vision (left eye), got treatment at SCCH-25 16 MVC No.4958/2021 SNR Hospital, Kolar, NIMHANS, Bangalore for facial and head injuries, later he was treated at Minto eye hospital. As per the wound certificate of SNR Hospital, Kolar it is seen that left eye prephthisical eye, B-scan done and reported as Vitreous Hemorrhage, distorted globe contour. Nil prognosis was explained as PL was negitve. PW.3 further stated that, on examination he found that Ocular adnexa on the left eye - scars over nose, left eyebrow, frontal regions seen, Anterior segment - Artificial eye in situ. On its removal phthisical eye was seen and Fundus - No view and vision - No P.L. Further PW.3 has opined that the vision in left eye is completely and irreversibly loss due to pthisis bulbi. Visual disability of the petitioner is estimated at 30% and he belongs to disability category II (one eyed person). During the cross examination of PW.3, he has stated that, he has not treated the petitioner. There was no visibility in the left eye. PW.3 has gone through the OPD slips of MINTO Hospital and wound certificate. Nil vision is mentioned in the wound certificate issued on 10.08.2021. The right eye has good vision. The petitioner can do his day to day activities but wherever both eye vision is required it is difficult. He has given only physical disability and not functional SCCH-25 17 MVC No.4958/2021 disability. The vision can not be restored by any means, it is irreversible.
19. Petitioner has also got examined Dr.Girish G. as PW.4. The PW.4 has stated in the chief examination affidavit that "upon clinical and radiographic examination he found that the petitioner has suffered cut laceration wound over forehead, CLW over right side of nasal region, fronal fracvtures, nasal bleeding. Final diagnosis of frontal fracture. The petitioner has complained that pain over midface and over backside of eye, difficulty in chewing the food and speak, loss of sensation over right nasal region and forehead and frequent headaches. On clinical examination, PW.4 found, tenderness over nasal bridge region, tenderness over frontal region and paresthesia over right infraorbital region and frontal region (conducted 2 point cotton test) and restricted mouth opening. PA and PNS X-ray shows, fractures malunited. The PW.4 has opined that the petitioner has suffered from fracture at 1 site 10%, paresthesia of infrabital and supraorbital nerve at 10% and liner scar over forhead and nose at .5% and total disability is at 25% and to the whole body disability is about 8%. The PW.4 has been subjected SCCH-25 18 MVC No.4958/2021 to cross examination. The PW.4 has deposed that he was not treated the petitioner. He is a Maxi-lo facial surgeon. There is surgery done to the petitioner. There was bone fractures to the petitioner and they are mal-united.
20. Before discussing on this point, it is necessary to advert to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full SCCH-25 19 MVC No.4958/2021 life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.
21. Our Hon'ble High Court has held in a case MFA.811 OF 2015 (MV-I) decided on 18 July, 2019 in between Rajanna @ Raju and another V/s Srinivas and another that "It is necessary to understand the meaning of the expression "permanent disability", which has been elucidated in Rajkumar. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of SCCH-25 20 MVC No.4958/2021 them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ("the Disabilities Act", for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation.
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, SCCH-25 21 MVC No.4958/2021 that is, the permanent disability suffered by the person."
22. Section 19 of Assessment Guidelines or Gazate Notification defines the "Visual impairment". As per this section or clause:
(a) "blindness" means a condition where a person has any of the following conditions, after best correction--
(i) Total absence of sight; or (ii) Visual acuity less than 3/60 (or less than 10/200) by Snellen's chart in better eye with best possible corrections or (iii) Limitation of field of vision subtending an angle of less than 10 degree in better eye.
(b) "Low- vision "means a condition where a person has any of the following conditions, namely: -- (i) Visual acuity less than 6/18 (or 20/60) up to 3/60 (or 10/200) by Snellen's chart in the better eye with best possible corrections or (ii) Limitation of the field of vision subtending an angle of less than 40-
degree up to10-degree in better eye "
By considering the dictums of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Our Hon'ble High Court and also evidence led by SCCH-25 22 MVC No.4958/2021 the Doctor, It is appears to Court that, the petitioner has sustained visual disability as well as physical disability. And it definitely affected on his day to day activities. The Doctor has given visual disability at 30% and physical disability of 8% for functional loss of malocclusion. By considering the nature of injuries and treatment and loss of vision, it is appears to Court that the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability of 38%. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for the compensation under the following heads.
PECUNIARY DAMAGES I. Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and misc. expenditures.
23. The claimant has contended that after the accident he was shifted to Government Hospital, Mulbagal, wherein provided first aid treatment and thereafter he was shifted to RL Jalappa Hospital, Kolar and thereafter he was shifted to NIMHANS, Bangaloe and finally he was admitted to SNR District Hospital, Kolar wherein admitted as an inpatient, underwent surgery and discharged with advice to take treatment as outpatient. But petitioner has not produced any of the Discharge Summary to show the SCCH-25 23 MVC No.4958/2021 duration of the treatment. But petitioner has produced OPD record at Ex.P.8. The petitioner has stated that he has spent Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical medical and other expenses. But to prove the same, he has not produced any medical bills. Hence, petitioner will not get any amount under the head of medical expenses. As supra said, the petitioner has admitted in the said Hospital as inpatient but he has not proved the same by producing any documents. Hence, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.5,000/-. A sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded under the head of attendant, food and nourishment charges.
(ii) LOSS OF EARNING
24. The claimant has contended that, he was working as a Labor Work and was earning of Rs.30,000/- per month. In this regard, the petitioner has not produced any documents nor examined any witness. He has failed to prove his exact income. So, considering the nature of work notional income of Rs.15,000/-pm. is calculated to award loss of earning, it would meets the ends of justice. The petitioner has not placed any material worth to show he got admitted in the above referred hospitals and taken a treatment as inpatient. Therefore, I award SCCH-25 24 MVC No.4958/2021 2,000/- to the claimant under the head of loss of earning during the treatment.
(b) LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING ON ACCOUNT OF PERMANENT DISABILITY:
25. The claimant has examined the Doctor to substantiate the disability as Pws-3 & 4. As already discussed above, the petitioner was suffered disability. The medical officer has given vision disability and physical disability at 30% + 8% Points for functional loss of malocclusion. By considering the nature of injuries and treatment, it is appears to Court that the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability of 38%. As per the petition averments, the age of the claimant is 41 years. But, the Aadhar Card marked at Ex.P7 clearly discloses that, the age of the petitioner was 41 years. Therefore, the age of the claimant is considered as 41 years to assess the loss of future earning and the multiplier is 14. As I have already stated the notional income of the claimant is Rs.15,000/-pm, The loss of future earning is calculated as Rs.15,000/- (Monthly income) X 12 (Months) X 14 (multiplier) X 38 (disability)/100 = Rs.9,57,600/- which is the just and proper compensation payable to claimant.
SCCH-25 25 MVC No.4958/2021NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES (GENERAL DAMAGES)
(iii) Damages for pain and suffering and trauma consequence of the injuries.
26. The claimant has undergone pain and suffering during the treatment. Therefore, I award Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the claimant under the head of pain and suffering.
27. As per the version of PW.4, the Petitioner needs another surgery under general anesthesia for frontal sinus and fracture elevation, scar revision. In this regard neither the petitioner nor PW.4 has produced any estimation bill about further surgery. As per the evidence of Pws.1 & 4 and looking at the earlier treatment cost and the evidence on record, it appears it would be justifiable if an amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner under the head of Future Medical Expenses.
28. The claimant in all entitled for just compensation under the following heads:
SCCH-25 26 MVC No.4958/2021Sl. NATURE OF THE HEADS COMPENSATION No. 01 Medical Expenses NIL 02 Loss of income during Rs.2,000=00 treatment 03 Attendant, Food & Rs.5,000=00 Nourishment charges 04 Pain and Suffering Rs.50,000=00 05 Loss of future earning on Rs.9,57,600 =00 account of disability 06 Future Medical Expenses Rs.20,000=00 TOTAL Rs.10,34,600=00
29. The next question is the liability to pay the said compensation. As the respondents failed to prove their defense. The petitioner proved that as on the date of accident the policy was in force. Therefore, Respondent No.2 has to indemnify the respondent No.1 and liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, I answer issue No.2 partly in affirmative
30. Issue No.3:- In view of my findings to the above Issues, I proceed to pass the following:
-: ORDER :-
The claim petition filed by claimant under section 166 of the SCCH-25 27 MVC No.4958/2021 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is allowed in part as against respondent No.2.
The Petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs,10,34,600/-
(Rupees Ten Lakhs Thirty Four
Thousand Six Hundred Only) with
interest at 6% per annum from the
date of petition till realization.
The Respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant and directed to deposit the same within 60 days from the date of this judgment.
On deposit of compensation, the claimant is entitled withdraw 70% and remaining 30% shall be invested as FD in any nationalized bank for a period of three years.
The Advocates fee of Rs.1,000/-
fixed.
Draw the award accordingly.
(Directly typed and computerized by the stenographer, corrected by me then pronounced in the open Court on this the 3rd day of October, 2025) (RAGHAVENDRA.R) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, Bangalore.SCCH-25 28 MVC No.4958/2021
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the Petitioner:
PW.1 : Sri. Subramani PW.2 : Sri. N.Shivareddy PW.3 : Dr.Krisna Prasad A.H. PW.4 : Dr.Girish G.
List of documents marked for the petitioner:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR and complaint Ex.P2 True copy of Spot mahazar Ex.P3 True copy of Spot sketch Ex.P4 True copy of IMV report Ex.P5 True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P6 True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P7 Notarized copy of Adhaar card of petitioner (compared with original and same is returned) Ex.P8 OPD book Ex.P9 Authorization letter Ex.P10 Copy of MLC register extract (compared with original register and same is returned) Ex.P11 OPD record Ex.P12 Clinical report Ex.P13 Out Patient record Ex.P14 X-ray SCCH-25 29 MVC No.4958/2021 witnesses examined for the Respondents.
RW.1: Sri. Santhosh List of documents marked for the Respondents:
Ex.R1: Authorization letter
Ex.R2: Copy of policy
(RAGHAVENDRA R.)
XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT,
Bangalore.
Digitally signed by
RAMACHANDRAPPA
RAMACHANDRAPPA RAGHAVENDRA
RAGHAVENDRA
Date: 2025.10.17
17:13:58 +0530