Bangalore District Court
Yogesh Y.V vs Cholamandalam Ms Gen Ins Co Ltd on 8 April, 2026
KABC020268532022
IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND ACJM
AND ADDL. MACT., BENGALURU, (SCCH-15)
PRESENT: SMT. RESHMA JANE RODRIGUES
M.com., LL.M.,
XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge,
ACJM, Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT-15, Bengaluru.
MVC No.4916/2022
Dated this the 8th day of April 2026
Petitioner/s: Sri. Yogesh Y.V
S/o E. Venkataswamy,
Aged about 22 years,
Yallapanayakanahalli village,
Y.N. Hoskote Hobli,
Siddapura Post,
Pavagada Taluk,
Tumkur District - 572 141.
(By Sri. BC, Adv.)
Versus
Respondent/s : 1) Cholamandalam MS Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.,
Unit No.4, 9th floor, Level - 06
Golden Heights Complex,
59th C Cross, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru - 10.
SCCH 15 2 MVC No.4916/2022
(Policy No.3361/0123556/000/00)
(By Sri. KS, Adv.)
2. Sri. Shivanna L
S/o Lakashmaiah,
Obalapura Village, Kora Hobli,
Tumkur District - 572106.
(owner of the Hero Livo Bike
bearing Reg.No.KA-06-HE-5303)
(Exparte)
*****
:JUDGMENT:
This claim petition emanates in respect of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner by name Yogesh in the Road Traffic Accident dated 05.06.2022.
2. Succinctly stated the facts germane to the lis involved in this petition are briefly summarized as follows:
That on 05.06.2022 at about 9.00 p.m., when the petitioner was riding his Bike bearing Reg.No.KA-06-EP-2592 in order to go to his job and when he reached in front of Akshaya College, Tumkur - Koratagere road, at that time, SCCH 15 3 MVC No.4916/2022 respondent's motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-06-HE-5303 (herein after referred to as the offending vehicle) came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner. As a result, petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries due to the impact of the accident.
3. Immediately, after the accident petitioner was shifted to Sridevi hospital, Tumkur, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient. Hence, the petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with cost and interest in the interest of justice and equity.
4. In pursuance of service of notice issued to the Respondents, Respondent No.2 remained absent and he was placed exparte.
The Respondent No.1 has filed written statement submitting as follows:
The respondent No.1 admitted that it has issued insurance policy to the offending vehicle in favour of the SCCH 15 4 MVC No.4916/2022 respondent No.2. Without prejudice the liability of the respondent No.1 if any is subject to the validity of driving license and terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The rider of the said offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving license. It is denied that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the car. The age, avocation of the petitioner is denied. Hence, on these grounds Respondent No.1 has prayed to dismiss the petition against it.
5. Vide order dated 20.11.2023 the following issues were framed by this Tribunal :-
ISSUES
1) Whether the Petitioner proves that he had sustained grievous injuries in the Road Traffic Accident that occurred on 05.06.2022 at about 9.00 p.m., in front of Akshaya College, Tumkur - Koratagere Road, Tumkur taluk, Tumkur, due to the rash and negligent riding of the Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-06-HE-5303 by its rider?
SCCH 15 5 MVC No.4916/2022
2) Whether the Petitioner is entitled for the compensation as prayed for? If yes, what is the quantum and who is liable to pay?
3) What Order or Award?
6. In order to prove the case of the Petitioner, the Petitioner got examined himself as PW.1 and examined one witness as PW.2 and relied upon Ex.P.1 to 21 documents and respondent No.1 got examined one witness as RW.1 and relied upon Ex.R1 and 2 documents.
7. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for parties in this case. Having perused the records my issue wise findings run as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.3 : As per the Final Order
for the following :
REASONS
8. Issue No.1: Before adjudication of the issue with respect to the compensation it is quintessential to adjudicate SCCH 15 6 MVC No.4916/2022 on the issue of negligence. It is the contention of the petitioner that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-06-HE- 5303/offending vehicle.
9. In this regard the petitioner has got examined himself as PW.1 and in his chief-examination he has deposed that on 05.06.2022 at about 9.00 p.m., he was riding his Bike bearing Reg.No.KA-06-EP-2592 to his work place and when he reached in front of Akshaya College, Tumkur - Koratagere road, at that time, rider of the offending vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner. As a result, petitioner sustained grievous injuries.
10. The petitioner in support of his claim has in addition to describing of the course of the accident in line with the facts mentioned in the complaint has relied upon Ex.P1 to 10 documents. Ex.P1 is the FIR registered against the rider of the offending vehicle for the offenses under Sec.279 and 337 of SCCH 15 7 MVC No.4916/2022 IPC on the basis of the complaint given by petitioner on 07.06.2022 as per Ex.P2. As far as the delay in lodging the complaint is concerned it is stated that the petitioner was under treatment in the hospital and hence there is a delay in lodging the complaint. Ex.P3 is the spot mahazar which discloses the spot of the accident and it is a tar road almost 30 feet wide east - west Koratagere - Tumkur road and the accident has occurred at the eastern edge of the road. Ex.P4 is the IMV report which discloses the damages sustained to the vehicles involved in the accident. Ex.P5 is the MLC. Ex.P10 is the charge sheet filed against the rider of the offending vehicle for the offences under Sec.279 and 338 of IPC and in addition the charge sheet is also filed under Sec.181 of MV Act for not possessing DL at the time of the accident. Hence, these documents produced by the petitioner satisfactorily establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending vehicle.
SCCH 15 8 MVC No.4916/2022
11. As far as the manner of the accident is concerned PW.1 is cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and in the cross-examination he has deposed that he was traveling alone in his motorcycle and he had learner license to ride the motorcycle and the accident road is double road and the motorcycle dashed from ahead. He has denied that accident occurred due to his negligence. It is suggested that the petitioner was not knowing riding and hence accident occurred due to his own negligence. Except the suggestion that the accident has taken place due to the negligence on the petitioner's side nothing much is elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1 to prove that the accident took place due to the negligence or rashness on the part of petitioner. The petitioner has clearly and categorically deposed about the manner of the accident. The oral testimony of PW.1 has stood unrebutted and PW1 has withstood the cross- examination of Respondent No.1. There is no material on record which suggests falsity or untruth in the oral testimony SCCH 15 9 MVC No.4916/2022 of PW.1 as to the facts and circumstances surrounding cause of the accident. PW.1 has also denied the suggestion imputing the cause of the accident to be due to his negligence. The fact that the rider of the offending vehicle has already been charge sheeted for the offences under Sec.279 and 338 of IPC and under Sec.181 of MV Act itself is strong circumstance to support the oral testimony of PW.1. The certified copies of FIR, charge sheet, IMV report and Spot mahazar also corroborate the oral testimony of PW.1. In view of medical records there is no dispute regarding the nature of injuries sustained by PW.1 in the above accident. In view of the said discussion it is satisfactorily established that PW.1 suffered grievous injuries on account of rashness and negligence of rider, riding the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Hence, issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioner and in the 'Affirmative'.
12. Issue No.2: In view of the findings on issue No.1 in favour of petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for compensation.
SCCH 15 10 MVC No.4916/2022 The computation of compensation will have to be decided separately under various heads.
13. MEDICAL OR TREATMENT EXPENSES: As far as the medical bills are concerned the petitioner has produced Ex.P11 and 19 - discharge summaries which discloses that the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient at Sridevi hospital from 08.07.2022 to 09.07.2022, 05.06.2022 to 10.06.2022. It is admitted by Pw1 in his cross examination that the hospital bills are reimbursed and hence he has not produced the inpatient bill and original discharge summary. Ex.P12 are the medical bills 36 in nos. Though it is state that these bills are duplicate there is no evidence to show that the said amount covered under ExP12 is already covered in the inpatient bill or reimbursed to the petitioner. As far as the medical bills are concerned, except suggesting that the said bills are created, nothing is elicited to disprove the authenticity of the said bills. Hence in view of Ex.P12 petitioner is awarded an amount of Rs.31,863/- under this head.
SCCH 15 11 MVC No.4916/2022
14. PAIN AND SUFFERING: As per the medical
documents the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries and Ex.P11 - discharge summary discloses that the petitioner has sustained 5 week old united proximal phalynx of 4 th & 5th metatarsal fracture of right foot with K-wire in situ and it is stated in the petition that injuries sustained and physical impairment has caused unbearable pain and petitioner cannot do any work as prior to the accident. It is not possible to ascertain quantum of compensation admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc., which he actually suffered due to the accidental injuries. Keeping in view the trauma and nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded to him towards pain and sufferings. Thus, he is awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- under this head.
15. LOSS OF ACTUAL EARNINGS: In his evidence PW.1 has submitted he was aged about 22 years and he was SCCH 15 12 MVC No.4916/2022 working as Line Supervisor at Copprrod Industries Pvt. Ltd., Tumkur and earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. In this regard PW.1 has produced SBI Statement of account at Ex.P18. But, he has not shown any entries to show that he was getting salary of Rs.15,000/- from the said company in which he claims to have worked. The petitioner has also not produced any pay slip or salary certificate or appointment letter or resignation or relieving letter to prove his income and avocation. In the absence of any material as to the monthly earnings of the petitioner it would be proper to assume the monthly earnings of the petitioner as per the notional income as on the date of the accident. As per the minimum wages chart and KALSA guidelines the notional income is taken as Rs.15,500/- p.m for assessing compensation. Taking into consideration that the petitioner due to the injuries might not have been in a position to work for at least 3 months hence, as such the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.15,500 X 3 = 46,500/- under this head.
SCCH 15 13 MVC No.4916/2022
16. LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS DUE TO DISABILITY:
The petitioner has claimed in his affidavit he has permanent disability and as per the evidence of PW.2 his impairment is not progressive and will not improve in future and hence it is submitted by the petitioner that he cannot pursue his work as before the accident.
In support of the same, PW.2 - Orthopaedic Surgeon is examined and he has deposed that the petitioner has sustained right proximal phalanx of the toe and 4 th and 5th metatarsal head fracture and now he has complain of being unable to stand for long time, unable to sit down, squat, sit cross legged and he assessed right lower limb disability of 24% and whole body is 8%. PW.2 is cross-examined by learned counsel for respondent No.1 and he has deposed that he has not treated the petitioner and has not seen the case sheet and further treatment documents. PW2 deposed that the fracture is united and implants can be removed. He denied that the disability is assessed on the higher side. Taking into SCCH 15 14 MVC No.4916/2022 consideration the avocation of the petitioner as far as functional disability is concerned the petitioner can do his work with some difficulties. Hence it is just and proper to take the disability as 1/3 to the whole body which is already assessed at 8%. The monthly income of the petitioner is already assessed at Rs.15,500/- at the relevant time. As far as, age of the petitioner at the time of the accident is concerned on perusal of the petitioner's Aadhaar card Ex.P17 the birth year of the petitioner is 14.07.2000. Going by the same, the age of petitioner as on date of accident i.e., 05.06.2022 was around 22 years. Therefore, in view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the multiplier of '18' is held applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of SCCH 15 15 MVC No.4916/2022 petitioner arising out of his above disability. The loss of future earnings of petitioner due to above injury and permanent physical disability comes to Rs.2,67,840/- (Rs.15,500/- X 12 X 18 X 8%) and the same is awarded to him as compensation under this head.
17. Loss of Amenities: In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs.20,000/- under this head.
18. Attendant's charges, Special diet and Conveyance:
The facts show that physical condition of the petitioner is such that he needs help of an attendant and conveyance for movement. His avocation has been hit due to his disablement. He might have spent considerable amount towards special diet during his treatment. Therefore, petitioner is granted Rs.20,000/- under this head.
SCCH 15 16 MVC No.4916/2022
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE
PETITIONER IS ENTITLED:
To sum up, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads :
1. Pain, shock & Suffering ₹ 30,000/-
2. Loss of amenities ₹ 20,000/-
3. Loss of income during the laid ₹ 46,500/-
up period
4. Attendant's charges, Extra diet, ₹ 20,000/-
and conveyance
5. Medical expenses ₹ 31,863/-
6. Loss of Future Income ₹ 2,67,840/-
Total ₹ 4,16,203/-
Thus, totally the Petitioner is awarded compensation of ₹4,16,203/- with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of this petition till the date of realization.
20. Regarding rate of interest: As far as the rate of interest is concerned the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS.
SCCH 15 17 MVC No.4916/2022 RAJASTAN VS. SMT. LAXMI reported in 2018 (4) AKR 808 has held that in case of motor accident claims rate of interest awarded is 6% per annum and the Hon'ble High court has been consistently granting 6% interest in Motor Vehicles Accident Claims and Compensation cases. Hence the rate of interest is set at 6% per annum in this case.
21. Regarding Liability: As far as the liability is concerned, respondent No.1 official is examined as RW.1 and he has deposed that " the insured was riding the motorcycle without a valid and effective driving license to ride the vehicle independently on a public road, thereby has breached the terms and conditions of the policy and has absolved this respondent from the alleged obligations under the policy. After due investigation the jurisdictional police have filed the charge sheet against driver / owner of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-06-HE-5303 under Sec.3(1) & Sec.181 of MV Act. As the rider was not having DL to ride the offending vehicle the insured has breached the terms and conditions of the policy SCCH 15 18 MVC No.4916/2022 and this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
22. As far as absence of driving license is concerned the police have filed charge sheet stating that the rider of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving license. Respondent no 2 on the other hand has remained absent and has not adduced any independent evidence or produced the DL of the rider of the offending vehicle. In addition ExP8 reply to section 133 MV Act notice produced by the petitioner in this case clearly discloses that respondent No 2 did not possess DL on the relevant date. Hence it can be concluded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid DL as on the date of the accident.
On this point the learned counsel for petitioners in this case has relied on the following decisions:
1. MFA No.202104/2024 (MV-D), between ICICI Lombard Nibhaye Vadde Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Pooja & others SCCH 15 19 MVC No.4916/2022
2. MFA No.201482/2018 (MV-I), The National Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Saidappa & another
3. Neutral Citation No.2025 AHC 14110, between ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Arti Devi & others
4. CMA 554 of 2025, between SBI Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Muthulakshmi & othrs.
5. Mis. Appeal No.2555 of 2011, between The New India Assu. Co. Ltd., Vs. Ashish and another Per contra the learned counsel for respondent No 1 in the course of his arguments has relied on the following decisions:
1. SLP (Civil) No.11758 of 2025, between Mahaveer Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd., & others
2. CMA (MD) Nos. 747 & 753 of 2025, between SBI Gen. Ins.
Co. Ltd., Vs. Tamil Selvi & others On careful glance of the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner and respondent No1 admittedly the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner deals with pay and recovery and the decisions relied upon by the SCCH 15 20 MVC No.4916/2022 counsel for respondent No 1 are related to the fastening liability on the owner for not possessing Driving license as fundamental breach of policy conditions. In MFA No 202104/24 reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Pappu and others Vs Vinod Kumar and it is concluded that though there is a violation of the policy conditions however since the MV act is a benevolent legislation the claimants cannot be deprived of the compensation so awarded in this case and the insurance company was directed to pay the compensation amount and later to recover the said amount from the insured.
24. The Motor vehicles Act Amendment 2019 neither takes away the liability of the insurer to pay the claimants nor its right to recover the said amount from the owner and the law to this effect remains intact and the principle will still govern protecting third party interest. Hence the principle of law laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd Vs Swaran Singh and Ors can be made applicable to this case.
SCCH 15 21 MVC No.4916/2022
23. Be it as it may if the case on hand is taken into consideration no doubt not possessing driving license is a fundamental breach of the policy condition however the grant of award of compensation under the MV Act to the victim is a benevolent piece of legislation and hence calls for a harmonious construction so as to give remedy to the victims of road accidents. The contract of insurance is between the insurer and the insured and the intention of making statutory third party insurance is to compensate the road accident victims and their remedy cannot be abridged on the ground on of breach of policy conditions since the victims in this case are admittedly not privy to the contract but independent third parties. Hence they are entitled to obtain compensation from respondent no 1 who in turn will have to recover the same from the insured. However Respondent No.1 will have to deposit the compensation amount and thereafter recover the same from Respondent No.2. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 "Partly in the Affirmative".
SCCH 15 22 MVC No.4916/2022
24. Issue No.3: In view of my findings on Issues No. 1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent No.1 and 2 U/S 166 of M.V. Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Petitioner is entitled for
Compensation of ₹4,16,203/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of Award amount.
The Respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioner.
However, the Respondent No.1 being the Insurer, is directed to deposit the Award amount and interest as stated above within 60 days from the date of the Award and thereafter recover the same from the Respondent No.2 through due process of law.
Out of the compensation amount awarded to the Petitioner, 75% of the award amount SCCH 15 23 MVC No.4916/2022 with accrued interest shall be released to the Petitioner by way of E-payment and after proper identification. The remaining 25% award amount shall be deposited as F.D. in the name of the Petitioner in any Nationalized or Scheduled bank for a period of three years.
The Advocate fee is fixed at ₹1,000/-.
Draw Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 8th day of April, 2026) (RESHMA JANE RODRIGUES) XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge, ACJM,Court of Small Causes & Member, MACT-15, Bengaluru.
Annexure Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioner :
P.W.1 : Yogesh Y.V P.W.2 : Dr. Nagaraj B.N
Documents marked as Exhibits for the Petitioner :
Ex.P1 FIR Ex.P2 Complaint SCCH 15 24 MVC No.4916/2022 Ex.P3 Spot mahazar Ex.P4 IMV report Ex.P5 Medico legal certificate Ex.P6 to 9 Police notices and replies Ex.P10 Charge sheet Ex.P11 Discharge summary Ex.P12 Medical bills Ex.P13 Outpatient record Ex.P14 Prescriptions Ex.P15 & 16 X-rays Ex.P17 Aadhaar card Ex.P18 SBI statement of account Ex.P19 Discharge summary Ex.P20 Clinical notes Ex.P21 X-ray
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Respondents:
RW.1 Sri. Santhosh Documents marked as Exhibits for the Respondents:
Ex.R1 Authorization letter
Ex.R2 Copy of insurance policy
(RESHMA JANE RODRIGUES)
XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge,
ACJM,Court of Small Causes &
Member, MACT-15, Bengaluru.