Bangalore District Court
Prakash V vs Sundar R on 23 April, 2026
KABC020190572024
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 JUDGE
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND XXI ACJM,
BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF APRIL 2026
MVC No.3005/2024 & MVC No.3006/2024
PETITIONER/s Sri. V. Prakash
in MVC No.3005/2024: S/o V. Munozi Rao,
Aged about 61 years,
R/o. No.28/49/10,
Kotthapet, Punganur,
Chittoor Dist,
Andhra Pradesh - 517 247.
(By Sri.T.V.Ramesh,
Advocate/s)
Sri. V.Vamsi Krishna
PETITIONER/s
@ Vayakar Vamsi Krishna
in MVC No.3006/2024:
S/o V. Prakash,
Aged about 30 years,
R/o. No.28/49/8b,
Kotthapet,
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.3005/2024
& MVC No.3006/2024
Gokul Circle,
Punganur,
Chittoor Dist,
Andhra Pradesh - 517 247.
(By Sri.T.V.Ramesh,
Advocate/s)
V/S
RESPONDENTS 1. Sri. Sundar R.
in all the cases: S/o Ramadass P,
Major,
R/o No.10/27, GF New
Street, Kannammapet,
T.Nagar,
Chennai - 600 017.
(By Sri.C.V.Sreenivasulu,
Advocate.)
2. Kotak Mahindra General
Ins. Co. Ltd.,
Unit No.SG-09 & SG-10,
Ground Floor South Block,
Manipal Centre,
Building No.47,
Dickenson Road,
Off MG Road,
Bengaluru - 560 042.
(By Sri. Kiran Pujar,
Advocate.)
SCCH-25 3 MVC No.3005/2024
& MVC No.3006/2024
JUDGMENT
These judgments arises out of claim petitions filed by the claimants against respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "Act") praying to award compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by them in the Road Traffic Accident occurred on 19.02.2024.
As the cause of action and the Respondents are identical in these matters, the cases are hereby consolidated. It is ordered that common evidence be recorded under the lead case, MVC No.3005/2024.
2. The case of the claimants in nutshell is that:
On 19.02.2024 at about 08.30am, the petitioners in both the cases were proceeding in a Scooty bearing Reg.No.AP-39-LH-6500 as a pillion rider and rider, on the correct side of Madanapalle- Punganur Road by wearing helmets. On the way near petrol bunk, Edigapalle Village, Punganur Mandal, Chitdtoor Dist. Andhra Pradesh, a Maruthi Car bearing Reg.No.TN-09-DB-9762 came from same direction at high speed in a rash and negligent SCCH-25 4 MVC No.3005/2024 & MVC No.3006/2024 manner, endangering human life and dashed violently against the petitioner's motorcycle to its rear side. Due to impact, both petitioners were knocked down and sustained grievous injuries.
3. It is the case of the petitioner in MVC No.3005/2024 that:
Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Madanapalli, provided first aid and thereafter referred to Chandra Mohan's hospital, inturn to HOSMAT, Bengaluru, the petitioner took treatment as an inpatient from 19.02.2024 to 24.02.2024, underwent several surgeries and discharged with advice. So far he has spent Rs.4,00,000/- towards treatment, conveyance, food and nourishment and other incidental expenses. On account of the said accidental injuries petitioner was completely bed ridden, he could not attend his work, undergoing deep mental shock since, the injuries caused are permanent in nature.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that, prior to the date of accident he was hale and healthy, doing Agriculture work and earning a sum of ₹25,000/- per month. Due to accidental injuries he SCCH-25 5 MVC No.3005/2024 & MVC No.3006/2024 could not attend his work, resulted in loss of earnings, earning capacity and put to great financial hardship.
5. It is the case of the petitioner in MVC No.3006/2024 that:
Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Madanapalli, provided first aid and thereafter referred to Chandra Mohan's hospital, inturn to HOSMAT, Bengaluru, the petitioner took treatment as an inpatient from 19.02.2024 to 24.02.2024, underwent several surgeries and discharged with advice. So far he has spent Rs.5,00,000/- towards treatment, conveyance, food and nourishment and other incidental expenses. On account of the said accidental injuries petitioner was completely bed ridden, he could not attend his work, undergoing deep mental shock since, the injuries caused are permanent in nature.
6. It is the further case of the petitioner that, prior to the date of accident he was hale and healthy, Software Engineer by profession at TATA Consultancy Services (TCS), Bengaluru and earning a sum of ₹50,000/- per month. Due to accidental injuries he SCCH-25 6 MVC No.3005/2024 & MVC No.3006/2024 could not attend his work, resulted in loss of earnings, earning capacity and put to great financial hardship.
7. The accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending Maruthi Car bearing Reg.No.TN-09-DB- 9762. The Punganur Police have registered a case in their Cr.No.152/2024 and filed charge sheet against the said Car driver p/u/Secs 279, 337 of IPC. The respondent No.1 being the RC owner and the Respondent No.2 being the Insurer of the Maruthi Car bearing Reg.No.TN-09-DB-9762 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners in both the cases. Hence, in both the cases, petitioners prays for award for the total compensation of ₹20,00,000/- & ₹25,00,000/- respectively.
8. In pursuance of notices, the Respondents have appeared through their respective counsel. However, the Respondent No.2 alone has filed written statement in both the cases.
9. That in both the cases, the Respondent SCCH-25 7 MVC No.3005/2024 & MVC No.3006/2024 No.2 in the written statement has denied the entire petition averments except admitting the issuance of policy in respect of the Maruthi Car bearing Reg.No.TN-09-DB-9762 in favour of the Respondent No.1. The accident caused due to the negligence of the rider of the Scooty and not by the driver of the Maruthi Car bearing Reg.No.TN-09-DB-9762. The driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving license as on the date of accident. There is non compliance of Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of the MV Act. It has also denied the age, income, avocation, medical expenses of the petitioner Further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, prayed for dismiss all the petitions against it.
10. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed for determination.
(Issues in MVC No.3005/2024) Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner proves that, the accident occurred on 19.02.2024 at 08.30am, at Edigapalle village, Madanapalle- Punganur Road, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor Dist., Andhrapradesh, due to negligent driving of driver of Maruti Car bearing Reg.No.TN-09- SCCH-25 8 MVC No.3005/2024 & MVC No.3006/2024 DB-9762 and in the said accident petitioner had sustained injuries?
Issue No.2:Whether the respondent No.2 proves that, the driver of offending vehicle was not holding effective and valid DL at the time of alleged accident?
Issue No.3: Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? Form whom?
Issue No.4: What order or Award?
(Issues in MVC No.3006/2024) Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner proves that, the accident occurred on 19.02.2024 at 08.30am, at Edigapalle village, Madanapalle- Punganur Road, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor Dist., Andhrapradesh, due to negligent driving of driver of Maruti Car bearing Reg.No.TN-09- DB-9762 and in the said accident petitioner had sustained injuries?
Issue No.2:Whether the respondent No.2 proves that, the driver of offending vehicle was not holding effective and valid DL at the time of alleged accident?
Issue No.3: Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? Form whom?
SCCH-25 9 MVC No.3005/2024& MVC No.3006/2024 Issue No.4: What order or Award?
11. In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioners in both the cases have examined themselves as Pws.1 & 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 8 and Exs.P.11 to P.22. They have also got examined Dr.S.A.Somashekara (in both the cases) as Pws.2 & 4 and got marked Exs.P.9 & 10 and Exs.P.23 & 24. The Respondents did not examine any witness nor produced any documents on their behalf.
12. I have heard the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties.
13. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties before this tribunal, my answers to the above issues (in both the cases) are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the affirmative
Issue No.2: In the negatively
Issue No.3: Partly in affirmative
Issue No.4: As per final order for the
foregoing:
#REASONS#
14. Issue No.1 and 2 in both the cases:
In order to substantiate the claim petition SCCH-25 10 MVC No.3005/2024 & MVC No.3006/2024 contention, the petitioners in both the cases have examined themselves as PWs.1 & 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 and Exs.P.11 to 22. They have also got examined Doctor as Pws.2 & 4 and got marked Exs.P.9 & 10 and Exs.P.23 & 24. The Respondents did not examine any witness nor produced any documents on their behalf. The details of the exhibits are given in the annexure of the judgment.
15. The chief examination of the PWs.1 & 3 are nothing but a repetition of plaint averments. These witnesses have been subjected to cross examination. The relevant portion of the Pw.1 & 3 are herewith reproduced:
15A. The Pws.1 & 3 have deposed that: both were proceeding from Bengaluru towards Madanapalli in a motorcycle and it belongs to the petitioner No.3, he was riding the bike. The complaint lodged by the petitioner No.3 i.e., the son of the petitioner No.1. There is a delay of 20 days in lodging the complaint. They further denied the suggestions of the counsel for the other side.
16. A perusal of the cross examination of the PW.1 and 3, the insurer has not seriously disputing SCCH-25 11 MVC No.3005/2024 & MVC No.3006/2024 the mode of accident. The specific case of the respondents that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated. It is undisputed fact that there is delay in lodging of the complaint. The PW.3 has explained the reasons for lodging of complaint with delay. The explanation given by the PW.3 is believable one. In the light of the Judgment referred to supra in 1RAVI's case, it is manifestly clear delay in lodging the FIR cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. However, the claim has to be examined with a closer scrutiny, particularly the contents of the FIR. The First Information report indicates that, the informant had not lodged the complaint as he was busy in taking treatment. So, the reasons assigned by the informant is 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.
17. The insurance company has taken a contention that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving license. A perusal of the charge sheet, the police have submitted the charge 1 RAVI V/s. BADRINARAYAN AND OTHER (2011) 4 SCC 693 SCCH-25 12 MVC No.3005/2024 & MVC No.3006/2024 sheet against the accused or driver of the offending Car for the offense punishable under section 279, 338 of Indian Penal Code and the police have not submitted that charge sheet against the accused for the offense punishable under section 3 read with section 181 of Motor Vehicle Act.
18. The petitioners have totally relied on the police documents to establish the negligence on the part of the offending Maruthi Car's driver. It is undisputed fact that the police have submitted the charge sheet against the driver of the offending Maruthi Car after thorough investigation. The sketch appended indicates that the accident Road was NH- 42 Punganuru towards Edigapalli Road. Further shows that the petitioners were almost on the left side of the road. The petitioners have not produced the Motor Vehicle Accident report. Further the investigating officer has not secured the vehicle damage report through out the proceedings. Apart this documents, the other police documents are clearly discloses that the driver of the offending vehicle was so hurried in driving his Car. Had the driver of the offending vehicle taken minimal care, the accident could be postponed or prevented. The SCCH-25 13 MVC No.3005/2024 & MVC No.3006/2024 oral evidence of the petitioners have coupled with documentary evidence.
19. 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. In other words, the court has to apply the principles of preponderance of probability and cannot apply the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard I would like to rely on the decision of our Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 28832. The Court cannot adopt strict liability as conducted in a criminal case to prove rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the respondent vehicle. But there should be prima-facie materials regarding rash and negligence to fix the owner and the insurance company for payment of compensation. The materials on records clearly indicates that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver. So, I answered issue No.1 in the affirmative and issue No.2 in negatively in both the cases.
2 Sajeena Ikhbal v. Mini Babu George, SCCH-25 14 MVC No.3005/2024 & MVC No.3006/2024
20. Issue No.3 in MVC 3005/2024:
The claimant has produced Wound Certificate at Ex.P.4. As per Ex.P.4 the petitioner has sustained (1) Swelling, pain over left thigh, fracture of left femur shaft and (2) Left chest pain. Out of these injuries, injury No.1 is grievous in nature. In this regard, he has got examined Dr.S.A.Somashekara as PW.2. The PW.2 has stated in the chief examination affidavit that petitioner has sustained Left Femur Shaft Fracture, underwent surgery in the form of closed reduction and internal fixation with recon nail under SA on 20.02.2024. PW.2 further stated that, on examination he complains of Pain and difficulty in walking and climbing stairs. History of inability to squat and sit cross legged. Now on examination, petitioner walks with pain and limping, wasting of left lower limb is seen, surgical scars are seen. X-ray shows united fracture shaft of femur left with failed implants in situ. The PW.2 on the basis of clinical and radiological findings, he has opined that the petitioner has got disability of left lower limb at 39% and that of whole body at 20%. The PW.2 has been subjected to cross examination. During the cross examination of PW.2, he has stated that, he has not treated the petitioner. He has gone through the SCCH-25 15 MVC No.3005/2024 & MVC No.3006/2024 wound certificate and discharge summary before assessing the disability. The fractures are united. He admitted that the problems referred in paragraph No.3 of his affidavit has not referred in any medical documents.
21. 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 3 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 3 2011 ACJ 1 SCCH-25 16 MVC No.3005/2024 & MVC No.3006/2024 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 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".
22. 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 SCCH-25 17 MVC No.3005/2024 & MVC No.3006/2024 the accident, though he is able to perform some of 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.
23. 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 SCCH-25 18 MVC No.3005/2024 & MVC No.3006/2024 limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the person."
24. By considering the dictums of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Our Hon'ble High Court and also evidence led by the medical officer, It is appears to Court that, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. The petition discloses that the petitioner was doing Agriculture work. The evidence of the medical officer clearly clinches that on clinical examination, the medical officer has pointed out the difficulties of the injured person to do routine work. It means, the petitioner is not in position to do the earlier work effectively. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has 4 held in a judgment/decision of ALIVELI MALLAREDDY Vs SURTHANI LINGANNA @ CHINNA LINGANNA & Others. in paragraph No.10 "This evidence has been dealt with by the High Court in extenso and having regard to the fact that the Almanco Manual would suggest that the disability when not assessed to the whole body, the disability to the lower limb will be 1/5 and upper limb be ¼ of the disability assessed."
By considering the age, nature of injuries and 4 CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19636 of 2024) dated 07.04.2025 SCCH-25 19 MVC No.3005/2024 & MVC No.3006/2024 treatment, it is appears to Court that the petitioner has suffered functional disability 7.8% (39% ÷ 1/5 for left lower limb) to the whole body. As such, the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability of 7.8% whole body. 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.
25. The claimant has contended that he has taken treatment at Govt. Hospital, Madanapalli, provided first aid and thereafter referred to Chandra Mohan's hospital, inturn to HOSMAT, Bengaluru, the petitioner took treatment as an inpatient from 19.02.2024 to 24.02.2024,at Hosmat Hospital. The petitioner has produced the medical bills at Ex.P7 for a sum of Rs.3,14,926/-. There is no repeated bills. There is no contrary to these bills from the Respondents. As such, I award a sum of Rs.3,14,926-00 as compensation to the claimant under the head of treatment and medical expenses. As supra said, the petitioner has admitted in the said Hospital as inpatient for a period of nearly 05 days.
SCCH-25 20 MVC No.3005/2024& MVC No.3006/2024 Hence, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.500/-per day for attendant and Rs.1500/- for food and nourishment charges, which would comes Rs.10,000/-. A sum of Rs.10,000=00 is awarded under the head of attendant, food and nourishment charges.
(ii) LOSS OF EARNING
26. The claimant has contended that, he was doing Agriculture work and was earning of Rs.25,000/- per month. In this regard, the petitioner has not produced any documents nor examined any witness. So, considering the nature of work, notional income of Rs.16,500/-pm. is calculated to award loss of earning, it would meets the ends of justice. Therefore, I award Rs.2,750=00 to the claimant under the head of loss of earning during the treatment.
(b) LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING ON ACCOUNT OF PERMANENT DISABILITY:
27. The claimant has examined the Doctor to substantiate the disability as PW-2. As already discussed above, the petitioner was suffered disability 7.8% Points for functional loss of malocclusion. As per the petition averments, the age of the claimant is SCCH-25 21 MVC No.3005/2024 & MVC No.3006/2024 61 years. The Aadhar Card marked at Ex.P8 clearly discloses that, the age of the petitioner was 60 years. Hence, the age of the claimant is considered as 60 years to assess the loss of future earning and the multiplier is 9. As I have already stated the notional income of the claimant is Rs.16,500/-pm, The loss of future earning is calculated as Rs.16,500/- (Monthly income X 12 (Months) X 9 X 7.8% ÷ 100 = Rs.1,38,996=00 which is the just and proper compensation payable to claimant.
NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES (GENERAL DAMAGES)
(iii) Damages for pain and suffering and trauma consequence of the injuries.
28. The claimant has undergone pain and suffering during the accident and during the rehabilitation period. Therefore, I award Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant under the head of pain and suffering.
29. As per the version of PW.2, the Petitioner needs another surgery for removal of implants, which would cost around Rs.40,000/-. In this regard neither the petitioner nor PW.2 has produced any estimation bill about further surgery. As per the SCCH-25 22 MVC No.3005/2024 & MVC No.3006/2024 evidence of Pws.1 & 2 and looking at the earlier treatment cost and the evidence on record, it appears it would be justifiable if an amount of Rs.20,000-00 is awarded to the Petitioner under the head of Future Medical Expenses.
30. The claimant in all entitled for just compensation under the following heads:
Sl. NATURE OF THE COMPENSATION
No.
HEADS
01 Medical Expenses Rs.3,14,926-00
02 Loss of income during Rs.2,750=00
treatment
03 Attendant, Food & Rs.10,000=00
Nourishment charges
04 Pain and Suffering Rs.1,00,000=00
05 Loss of future earning on Rs.1,38,996=00 account of disability 06 Future Medical Expenses Rs.20,000-00 TOTAL Rs.5,86,672=00
31. Issue No.3 in MVC 3006/2024:
The claimant has produced Wound Certificate at Ex.P.12. As per Ex.P.12 the petitioner has SCCH-25 23 MVC No.3005/2024 & MVC No.3006/2024 sustained (1) Multiple abrasion over left temporal over left hand, right hand, both knees, left foot and right foot (2) Swelling, tenderness right ankle and right thigh and right foot. (i) Fracture of right neck of femur, (ii) Right lateral malledus fracture of ankle and (iii) left end metatarsal fracture. All these injuries are grievous in nature. In this regard, he has got examined Dr.S.A.Somashekara as PW.4. The PW.4 has stated in the chief examination affidavit that petitioner has sustained fracture right neck of femur, fracture lateral malleolus right ankle, fracture 2 nd metatarsal left foot. He underwent surgery in the form of right neck of femur - CRIF with CC Screws under SA on 20.02.2024 + Conservative management of right ankle lateral malleolus and left 2 nd metatarsal fracture. Right hip - CC screw removal and total hip arthroplasty under CSEA on 21.02.2025. PW.4 has gone through the petitioner's wound Certificate and 2 discharge summaries before assessing the disabilities. On presentation the petitioner complains of pain and difficulty in walking and climbing stairs. History of inability to squat and sit cross legged. Now on examination, petitioner walks with pain and limping, wasting of left lower limb is seen, surgical scars are seen. X-ray shows Right HIP-THA SCCH-25 24 MVC No.3005/2024 & MVC No.3006/2024 components in situ, united fracture right lateral malleolus and united fracture 2nd metatarsal left. The PW.2 on the basis of clinical and radiological findings, he has opined that the petitioner has got total disability of both lower limbs at 53% and that of whole body at 27%. The PW.2 has been subjected to cross examination. During the cross examination of PW.2, he has stated that, he has not treated the petitioner. He has gone through the wound certificate and discharge summary before assessing the disability. There were 3 fracture to the petitioner, out of these, 2 fractures are united. Waist bones were replaced. There was no amputation.
32. By considering the dictums of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Our Hon'ble High Court and also evidence led by the medical officer, It is appears to Court that, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. The petition discloses that the petitioner was Software Engineer. The evidence of the medical officer clearly clinches that on clinical examination, the medical officer has pointed out the difficulties of the injured person to do routine work. It means, the petitioner is not in position to do the earlier work effectively. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has SCCH-25 25 MVC No.3005/2024 & MVC No.3006/2024 5 held in a judgment/decision of ALIVELI MALLAREDDY Vs SURTHANI LINGANNA @ CHINNA LINGANNA & Others. in paragraph No.10 "This evidence has been dealt with by the High Court in extenso and having regard to the fact that the Almanco Manual would suggest that the disability when not assessed to the whole body, the disability to the lower limb will be 1/5 and upper limb be ¼ of the disability assessed."
By considering the age, nature of injuries and treatment, it is appears to Court that the petitioner has suffered functional disability 10.6% (53% ÷ 1/5 for both lower limbs) to the whole body. As such, the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability of 10.6% whole body. 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.
33. The claimant has contended that he has taken treatment at Govt. Hospital, Madanapalli, provided first aid and thereafter referred to Chandra 5 CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19636 of 2024) dated 07.04.2025 SCCH-25 26 MVC No.3005/2024 & MVC No.3006/2024 Mohan's hospital, inturn to HOSMAT, Bengaluru, the petitioner took treatment as an inpatient from 19.02.2024 to 24.02.2024, underwent several surgeries and discharged with advice. The documents placed by the petitioner indicates that he has taken treatment before the said hospital. Further the Discharge Summary of the Petitioner produced by the PW.3 indicates that, the petitioner was admitted on 19.02.2024 and discharged on 24.02.2024 at Hosmat Hospital. The petitioner has produced the medical bills at Ex.P19 for a sum of Rs.3,37,972/-. There is no repeated bills. There is no contrary to these bills from the Respondents. As such, I award a sum of Rs.3,37,972/- as compensation to the claimant under the head of treatment and medical expenses. Further, the petitioner has produced Ambulance Bills at Ex.P.20 for a sum of Rs.67,000/-. By observing these bills, it can be seen that bill numbers are in serial and there is no information about the traveled distance. Therefore, it can be deemed that these bills are created one. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to reimburse the said bills amount under the head of Conveyance Allowance. As supra said, the petitioner has admitted in the said Hospital as inpatient for a period of nearly 5 days. Hence, it is just and proper SCCH-25 27 MVC No.3005/2024 & MVC No.3006/2024 to award a sum of Rs.500/-per day for attendant and Rs.1500/- for food and nourishment charges, which would comes Rs.10,000/-. A sum of Rs.12,000=00 is awarded under the head of attendant, food and nourishment charges.
(ii) LOSS OF EARNING and LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING ON ACCOUNT OF PERMANENT DISABILITY:
34. The claimant has contended that, he was working as Software Engineer at TCS, Bengaluru and drawing salary of Rs.50,000/- per month. During the cross examination of PW.3/Petitioner, he has admitted that he is still working in the same company and getting the same salary as before the accident.
Further stated that, during the period of treatment, he got the salary paid by the company on behalf of his paid leaves. In this regard petitioner has not submitted leave details. It can be gathered from the records that, the petitioner is continuing the job. It means, the petitioner was not restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions due to the injuries. As such granting amount under the head of LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING ON ACCOUNT OF PERMANENT DISABILITY does not arise at all.
SCCH-25 28 MVC No.3005/2024& MVC No.3006/2024 NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES (GENERAL DAMAGES)
(iii) Damages for pain and suffering and trauma consequence of the injuries.
35. The claimant has undergone pain and suffering during the accident and during the rehabilitation period. Therefore, I award Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant under the head of pain and suffering.
36. The claimant in all entitled for just compensation under the following heads:
Sl. NATURE OF THE COMPENSATION
No.
HEADS
01 Medical Expenses Rs.3,37,972-00
02 Loss of income during NIL
treatment
03 Attendant, Food & Rs.10,000-00
Nourishment charges
04 Pain and Suffering Rs.2,00,000-00
05 Loss of future earning on NIL
account of disability
TOTAL Rs.5,47,972-00
37. The next question is the liability to pay SCCH-25 29 MVC No.3005/2024 & MVC No.3006/2024 the said compensation. As I referred above the accident was occurred due rash and negligent driving of the offending Maruthi Car. It can be seen from the written statement of the respondent No.2 that the insurance was in force at the time of accident. Therefore, the Respondent No.2 has to indemnify the Respondent No.1. Hence, I answer issue No.3 in both the cases partly in affirmative
38. Issue No.4 in both the cases:- In view of my findings to the above points, I proceed to pass the following:
-: ORDER :-
The claim petitions filed by claimants under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are allowed in part The Petitioner of MVC No.3005/2024 is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,86,672=00 (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Two only) with interest at 6% per annum (Except on future medical expenses) from the date of petition SCCH-25 30 MVC No.3005/2024 & MVC No.3006/2024 till realization.
The Petitioner of MVC
No.3006/2024 is entitled for
compensation of Rs.5,47,972-00
(Rupees Five Lakhs Forty Seven
Thousand Nine Hundred and
Seventy Two Only). with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
By virtue of directions of Hon'ble Apex Court in SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 7 OF 2024 (2025 INSC 530), the petitioners are directed to furnish self-attested copies of their bank account pass-
book, Aadhar Card and PAN card, within 15 days to the insurance company/respondent No.2 under intimation to this Court.
On such furnishing of the documents by the petitioners, the Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest, within two months, directly to the credit of the bank SCCH-25 31 MVC No.3005/2024 & MVC No.3006/2024 account of the petitioners under intimation to this Court with all details.
The office is directed to make necessary entries in the concerned register without fail.
The Claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount.
Bank shall release apportionment amount along with interest thereon in favour of petitioners on proper verification and identification.
All the interim application if any pending stands disposed off.
The advocate fee of Rs.1,000/- fixed.
Keep the copies of this judgment in MVC No.3006/2024.
Draw the award accordingly. (Directly typed and computerized by the stenographer, corrected by me then pronounced in the open Court on this the 23rd day of April, 2026) (RAGHAVENDRA R.) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, Bengaluru.SCCH-25 32 MVC No.3005/2024
& MVC No.3006/2024 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the Petitioner/s:
PW.1 : Sri. V.Prakash PW.2 : Dr.S.A.Somashekara PW.3 : V.Vamsi Krishna PW.4 : Dr.S.A.Somashekara
List of documents marked for the petitioner:
Ex.P1 FIR Exs.P2 Complaint and translated copy & 2(a) Exs.P3 Spot Sketch and translated copy & 3(a) Ex.P4 Wound Certificate Ex.P5 Charge sheet Ex.P6 Discharge summary Ex.P7 Medical Bills 23 in Nos. Ex.P8 Attested copy of Aadhar Card Ex.P9 OPD Book Ex.P10 X-ray
Exs.P11 Witness Statement and translated & 11(a) copy Ex.P12 Wound Certificate Exs.P13 Discharge Summaries 2 in Nos.
& 14
Ex.P15 Lab reports 2 in Nos.
SCCH-25 33 MVC No.3005/2024
& MVC No.3006/2024
Ex.P16 Offer Letter and Terms of employment
Ex.P17 Payslips 4 in Nos.
Ex.P18 Bank Statement
Ex.P19 Medical Bills 38 in Nos.
Ex.P20 Ambulance Bills 8 in Nos.
Ex.P21 Attested copy of DL
Ex.P22 Attested copy of Aadhar Card
Ex.P23 OPD Book
Ex.P24 X-ray
List of witnesses examined for the Respondents.
-- NIL --
List of documents marked for the Respondents:
-- NIL --
(RAGHAVENDRA R.) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, Bengaluru.