Bangalore District Court
Afsar Alias Afsar Pasha vs Manoharan P N on 15 November, 2025
KABC020052712024
IN THE COURT OF XXI ADDL.SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.
(SCCH-23)
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF NOVEMBER - 2025
PRESENT: Sri. Shreyansh Doddamani
B.Com. LL.B, (Spl)
XXI ADDL. SCJ & ACJM
MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU.
MVC. No.915/2024
Petitioner : Mr. Afsar @ Afsar Pasha,
S/o Late Mahaboob Pasha,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at No.1295,
Subash Nagar, Singasandra,
Bengaluru-560068.
(By Sri. Suresha. G.A, Advocate)
v/s
Respondent/s : 1. Sri. Manoharan. P.N,
S/o Narayanan. P.M,
Flat No.108, Sharavathi Apartment,
Owners Court East Kasavanahalli,
Bengaluru-560037.
RC owner of car bearing
Reg.No.KA-53-MD-5145
(By Sri.C. Sreekantan Nair, Adv.,)
SCCH-23 2 MVC No.915/2024
2. Universal Sompo Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd.,
Regional Office,
KVD Towers, No.7/3, 2nd Floor road,
Above Barclays Finance
Opp. 100 Feet road,
Old Madras Road,
Indiranagar, Bengaluru.
Policy No.2311/7119396500000
valid from 29.08.2023 to 28.08.2024
(By Sri.Madhu Kiran, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed U/s 166 of the M.V. Act, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a RTA.
2. The case of the petitioner in the nutshell is that on 09.01.2024 at about 8.40 p.m, the petitioner was riding the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-51-AB-9778 from NICE road towards Hosa Road, on the extreme left side of Basapura Main road, in slowly by observing all the traffic rules and when he reached near Basapura Main road, Basapura, Bengaluru, at that time the driver of Car bearing Reg.No.KA-53-MD-5145 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger the human life and dashed to the petitioner's motorcycle. The said car further moved ahead and dashed against the stationed cab bearing Reg.No.KA-51-AC-4281. Due SCCH-23 3 MVC No.915/2024 to tremendous impact petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately he was shifted to Kaveri Hospital, wherein he took treatment as inpatient. He has spent substantial amount towards medical and other incidental expenses. He further submitted that due to the accidental injuries he lost income from the date of accident and fully disabled to avocation and loss earning capacity. Looking to the nature of injuries he permanently disabled. The accident was caused due to rash and negligence driving of the car, the respondent No.1 & 2 being the owner and insurer of the vehicle are jointly & severally liable to pay compensation.
3. Notice was duly served to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 appeared through his counsel by filing written statement rather objections to the main petition contending that the petition itself is not maintainable either law or on facts. The respondent No.1 denied the negligence on his part but contended that the petitioner himself is the sole responsible for the accident. The respondent No.1 admitted that he is the RC owner of the car and was duly insured with the 2 nd respondent SCCH-23 4 MVC No.915/2024 and same was in force as on the date of accident. It is further submitted that the driver of the car also possess valid and effective driving licence. Further denied all the allegation made in the petition. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. The respondent No.2 appeared through his counsel and filed written statement admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of car. However the liability if any is pleaded to be subject to the terms & conditions of the policy. The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Further this respondent denied the negligence on the part of the driver of the insured vehicle and contended that the accident took place due to the negligence of petitioner himself. This respondent contended that as on the date of accident the petitioner sustained injuries due to his own negligence who was riding his motorcycle with high speed in rash and negligent manner he lost control and fell down due to self fall from his motorcycle. This respondent further contended that as per the crime records the driver of the insured vehicle who is said to be driving the vehicle as on the date of accident was driving the car SCCH-23 5 MVC No.915/2024 under the influence of alcohol and the IO has filed charge sheet against the driver for the offence punishable u/s 185 of IMV Act. Hence this respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Further the respondent has contended that the owner and the concerned police have not complied the mandatory provision of Sections 134(c) and 158(6) of M.V.Act. Without prejudice to the said contention it is averred that the driver of the insured vehicle did not possess valid & effective DL as on the date of accident. Despite knowing the said fact the owner thereof had handed over its possession to such a driver. On account of willful breach of the terms & conditions of the policy, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify him. Further denied all the allegation made in the petition. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues were framed :
ISSUES
1) Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on 09.01.2024 at about 8.40 p.m., on Basapura main road, Basapura, Bengaluru, due to actionable SCCH-23 6 MVC No.915/2024 negligence of the driver of car bearing Reg.No.KA-
53-MD-5145 ?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for ? If so, at what rate and from whom?
3) What order or award ?
6. The petitioner examined himself as PW.1. Ex's.P1 to 17 and Ex.P.19 to 21 were marked on his behalf. Dr.Savio Pereira, MLC at Kaveri Speciality Hospital was examined as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P.18. In order to prove the defence, the respondent No.2 got examined the Investigating Officer as RW.1.
7. Heard counsel for the petitioner and respondents on merits. Perused the entire materials placed on record. My answers to the above issues are as follows :-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.3 : As per final order for the following :
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1 : The petitioner has knocked the doors of justice with a relief to grant a compensation of an amount to the tune of Rs.40 lakhs together. The evidence on record reveals SCCH-23 7 MVC No.915/2024 that after the receipt of complaint, the jurisdictional police conducted thorough investigation and filed charge sheet against the driver of the car bearing Reg.No.KA-53-MD-5145 for the offences punishable under section's 279, 338 of IPC and u/s 185 of IMV Act. There is nothing on record to believe that the charge sheet filed by the police is defective or collusive. Though the respondents have denied the cause of the accident, they have not let in any cogent evidence to prove their defence or to disprove the evidence led by the petitioner. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 which is supported by police documents has to be accepted. Consequently I hold that the accident is proved to have been caused due to the actionable negligence of the driver of the car bearing Reg.No.KA-53-MD-5145. Therefore, this Tribunal answers Issue No.1 'In the Affirmative'.
9. ISSUE NO.2 : As already discussed above the petitioner has proved that the accident took place due to the actionable negligence of the driver of the vehicle. Therefore he is entitled for compensation.
SCCH-23 8 MVC No.915/2024
10. AGE, AVOCATION AND INCOME : The petitioner has produced his Aadhaar card which is marked as Ex.P.12, as per the above said document wherein his year of birth is reflected as 1972. This indicates that he was aged (52 years 0 months 7 days) 52 years on the date of accident. No documents have been produced to establish the avocation and income of the petitioner as alleged in his evidence affidavit. It is relevant to rely on a decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka rendered on Division Bench in the case of Ananda v/s Arjun and another in MFA. No.101144/2020 (MV) dated. 05.07.2023. Wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has laid down the following principles in para No.8(b) are as here under :
"(b) The accident is of the year 2017. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month as against the claim of Rs.2,50,000/- per annum. To substantiate the said claim, the injured claimant has not placed any material on record, it is for the Courts and Tribunals to assess the income notionally. The notional income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the accident of the year 2017 is Rs.10,250/-. In the absence of any material produced by the claimant to prove his income, it is appropriate to assess the notional income of the injured claimant at Rs.10,250/- per SCCH-23 9 MVC No.915/2024 month, and the same is assessed as the monthly income of the injured claimant"
As such this court is taking the notional income as prescribed by the Karnataka Legal Service Authority, Bengaluru. Therefore in view of the above decision, the accident was occurred in the year 2024. Therefore, Rs.16,500/- has to be taken into consideration as monthly income of the petitioner.
11. As per the medical records petitioner has sustained the following injuries : scrotal Laceration, Pelvic ring injury. It is needless to say that the injury No.1 is simple and injury No.2 is grievous in nature. The discharge summary Ex.P.11 indicates that the petitioner was taken treatment as an inpatient from 09.01.2024 to 15.01.2024 for a period of 7 days. During the course of treatment he had undergone surgery in the form of :
Testicular Placement and Open Reduction and Plate fracture of Anterior Pelvic Ring.
12. It is the specific case of the petitioner that owing to the accidental injuries he has become disabled and has thereby lost his earning capacity. Therefore he got examined Medico Legal Consultant (General Surgeon) as PW.2. He during his chief-SCCH-23 10 MVC No.915/2024
affidavit he stated that he examined the patient on 24.06.2025 and noted that the patient was reduced range of movement (ROM) of right hip joint and unable to flex the right thigh to beyond 90 degree (Normal Flexion is upto 120 degree) Hence, there was loss of 30 degree of Range of Movement of Right Thigh to Hip due to stiffness. Further there was no pain, loss of function or deformity at Hip joint. The PW.2 who stated that on clinical examination conducted by him, he found that petitioner has sustained disability of around 12% at the right hip. During the course of cross-examination PW.2 admitted that he was not treated the petitioner. He stated that he was Medico Legal Consultant in the said hospital and he examined the patient. He stated that he was General Surgeon and he has seen the previous medical report and examined the patient for see the range of movement of hip. He further admitted that at the time of discharge, patient was stable and he was not take the opinion of treated doctor. He categorically admitted that fractures were united because metal pice, implants were in situ. He stated that the petitioner has taken followup treatment with the SCCH-23 11 MVC No.915/2024 Orthopedic doctor for left shoulder pain as well as pelvic bone. However from the careful examination of the medical records, it is seen that PW.2 has assessed the disability on the higher side. Be that as it may, the law is well settled that it is the impact of the physical disability on the particular avocation of the petitioner which is relevant for the purpose of assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future income as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajkumar's case reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343. When such is the case with a injuries sustained by the petitioner he cannot do his work effectively, as such his efficiency in work will decrease and it indirectly affect his income. Considering the nature of injuries, line of treatment and on appreciation of the clinical findings noted by the doctor, the possibility of the fact that the petitioner may be having economical or functional disability to the extent of 5%, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, I consider the functional disability of the petitioner at 5%.
13. ATTENDANT CHARGES, EXTRA NUTRITIOUS FOOD & CONVEYANCE CHARGES: The period of hospitalization of 7 SCCH-23 12 MVC No.915/2024 days is proved with a help of discharge summary. During the aforesaid period the petitioner might have also spent a considerable amount towards special diet, transportation and nutrition. Considering the rate of inflation and rise in the price index, the same is quantified at Rs.1,200/- per day and a sum of Rs.8,400/- (1,200 X 7) is awarded under this head.
14. PAIN & SUFFERINGS : On account of the accidental injuries the petitioner would have had undergone pain and mental agony. Thus this Tribunal awards a sum of Rs.60,000/- under this head.
15. LOSS OF INCOME DURING LAID-UP PERIOD:
Considering the nature of injuries, treatment given and duration of his stay in the hospital, it is quite natural that petitioner could not have carried out his avocation for at least 3 months. Thus by taking into account the notional income of the petitioner, this Tribunal awards Rs.49,500/- (16,500 X 3) under this head.
16. MEDICAL EXPENSES :As per the bills marked at Ex.P13, the petitioner has spent Rs.4,15,108/- towards medical SCCH-23 13 MVC No.915/2024 expenses. Nothing worthwhile was elicited during the course of his cross-examination, so as to doubt the genuineness of these bills. Hence the petitioner is entitled for Rs.4,15,108/- which is rounded off to Rs.4,15,100/- towards medical expenses.
17. LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME DUE TO DISABILITY:
As per Sarla Verma's case, the appropriate multiplier applicable is '11'. This Tribunal has already assessed the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.16,500/- p.m. Hence a sum of Rs.1,08,900/- (Rs.16,500 X 12 X 11 X 5/100) is awarded under this head.
18. LOSS OF FUTURE AMENITIES AND HAPPINESS:
The disability referred above would have necessarily caused physical deformity with which the petitioner has to live the rest of his life. Hence a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded under this head.
19. FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES AND OTHER INCIDENTAL EXPENSES : No evidence is brought on record to demonstrate the requirement for further treatment and the SCCH-23 14 MVC No.915/2024 medical & incidental expenses to be incurred therefrom. In the absence of proof no amount is awarded under this head.
20. The calculation table stands as follows :
1 Attendant charges, extra : 8,400-00 nutritious food & conveyance charges 2 Pain & sufferings : 60,000-00 3 Loss of income during laid-up : 49,500-00 period 4 Medical expenses : 4,15,100-00 5 Loss of future income due to : 1,08,900-00 disability 6 Loss of future amenities & : 40,000-00 happiness 7 Future medical and other : - Nil -
incidental expenses Total 6,81,900-00
21. REGARDING INTEREST & LIABILITY: Having regard to the nature of the claim and current bank rate of interest, this Tribunal is of the view that if interest at the rate of 6% p.a, is awarded it would meet the ends of justice.
22. The advocate for respondent argued that it is a drunk and drive case, hence owner is liable to pay the compensation. Per contra advocate for petitioner argued that drunk and drive is not a violation of policy condition. It is not covered u/s 149 of SCCH-23 15 MVC No.915/2024 MV Act or 150 of M.V. Amended Act, 2019. Therefore respondent is liable to pay the compensation.
23. Petitioner is relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA.4090/2016 (MV-I) between Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd and Prateek Kumar Tripathy and another. In the above case the blood of rider of the motor vehicle contains alcohol at 126 mg / dl per 100 ml of blood. As per Sec.125(A) of M.V.Act it should not exceed 30 mg /dl. So it was drunk and drive case and it was social crime. The act of driving a vehicle after consuming alcohol, often merely for personal enjoyment, not only endangers the life of the driver but also possess significant threat to pedestrian. Under such circumstances owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation and the insurer shall pay the compensation to the third party and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The Hon'ble High Court relied on the decisions in Mohammed Rasheed V/s Girivasan. E.K, Bhuvaneshwari v/s M/s B.V.M. Storage Solutions Pvt. Ltd and another and held that the insurer has to pay and recover the same from the owner.
SCCH-23 16 MVC No.915/2024
24. In the present case also it is the case of drunk and drive. In order to prove the said defence the respondent No.2 insurance company also examined the Investigation Officer as RW.1. In his chief examination he stated that he investigated the crime No.7/2024 and after thorough investigation he filed charge sheet. He stated that the investigation revealed that the driver of the alleged vehicle No.KA-53-MD-5154, was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. He further stated that he has also mentioned this in the charge sheet. According to the breath analysis, there was 139mg per 100ml. This has not been sent to the FSL and blood has not been collected. During the course of his cross examination RW.1 categorically admitted that no blood test was conducted on the accused to confirm that he was drunk, nor was a sample taken. He was not taken to any government hospital for examination. In order to substantiate the same apart from examination of IO as RW.1, there is absolutely no documentary proof placed before the Court. Even the respondent No.2 has also not produced the FSL Report to spells about as to alleged SCCH-23 17 MVC No.915/2024 intoxication by the driver. In the absence of any documentary proof, only RW.1 evidence cannot trusted as gospel truth. When such is the case, the respondent No.2 is bestowed with the burden to prove, that at the time of accident the driver was under the influence of alcohol. The respondent. No.2 has failed to prove the said factum. Moreover during the course of cross- examination of RW.1 he has also categorically admitted that he has not sent the blood sample to the FSL to prove the same. Hence the contentions urged by the respondent No.2 does not hold any water in the eye of law.
25. Driving by a drunken person is an offence under the Motor Vehicles Act. But what deserves notice is that every breach of the provisions of the M.V. Act would not entitle the insurance company to contend that its liability is exonerated. Except the conditions mentioned in section 147 of the IMV Act and the specific liability either admitted or agreed by way of contract at the time of issuance of the policy, the insurer cannot avoid its liability to satisfy the award under section 150 of the IMV Act. There is no evidence either to show that the SCCH-23 18 MVC No.915/2024 respondent No.1 had knowingly placed the car in the possession of the driver who was drunk before the accident. In such circumstances it is not possible to accept that there was willful breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Because the driver had no nexus with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. No doubt, if found guilty he will be convicted under section 185 of the M.V. Act. However the insurance company would still remain liable to innocent third parties. In this view of the matter the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the aforesaid award amount to the petitioner together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization of the entire amount. Hence this issue is answered as 'Partly in the Affirmative'.
26. ISSUE NO.3 : In view of the discussion made supra, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following :
ORDER The petition filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act 1988, is hereby partly allowed with costs in the following terms :SCCH-23 19 MVC No.915/2024
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.6,81,900/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of claim petition till realization of the entire award amount.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay and directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of award.
Out of the above said compensation amount awarded to the petitioner, 80% of the award amount with accrued interest shall be paid to her through NEFT/RTGS by way of E-payment on proper identification and due verification and further 20% of the award amount shall be kept in FD in favour of petitioner in any Nationalized or Scheduled bank for a period of 3 years.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and printout taken by him, then corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of November - 2025) (Shreyansh Doddamani) XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACJM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the petitioner/s:
PW.1 : Sri. Afsar @ Afsar Pasha PW.2 : Dr. Savio Pereira
List of documents got marked for the petitioner/s:
Ex.P.1 True copy of FIR SCCH-23 20 MVC No.915/2024 Ex.P.2 True copy of Complaint Ex.P.3 True copy of Charge Sheet Ex.P.4 True copy of Statement of witness Ex.P.5 True copy of Spot Sketch Ex.P.6 True copy of Spot Mahazar Ex.P.7 True copy of IMV Report Ex.P.8 True copy of Notice issued U/Sec.133 Ex.P.9 True copy of reply to the above said notice Ex.P.10 True copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P.11 Discharge summary
Ex.P.12 Notarized copy of the Aadhaar card of petitioner Ex.P.13 28 Medical bills of Rs.4,15,108/- Ex.P.14 Advance receipts (4 in Nos.) Ex.P.15 Prescriptions (18 in Nos.) Ex.P.16 1 Lab report (14 pages) Ex.P.17 X-ray films (4 in Nos.) Ex.P.18 Inpatient records along with receipt and flow sheet Ex.P.19 3-OPD Receipts Ex.P.20 4-OPD Receipts Ex.P.21 7-X-ray films List of witnesses examined for the respondent/s:
RW.1 : Sri. Siddaraju. H.S List of documents marked for the respondent/s:
- Nil -
(Shreyansh Doddamani) XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACJM, Bengaluru.