Bangalore District Court
Manimala D S vs United India Ins Co Ltd on 17 March, 2026
KABC0B0025832024
BEFORE THE MACT & XV ADDL., JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (SCCH-19)
Dated this the 17th day of March, 2026
Present:
Sri. Mohan Sadashiv Pol,
B.A.LL.B. (Spl.)
XV Addl. Small Causes Judge,
XXIII ACJM & MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC.No.9424/2024
1) Smt. D.S. Manimala,
W/o. Kantharaju,
Age 48 years,
R/at No.7/1, 1st Floor, 2nd Cross,
Above Kotak Mahindra Bank,
Kamaraj Colony, Hosur Taluk,
Krishnagiri District,
Tamil Nadu-635 109.
Also R/at No.9,
1st Main Road, 3rd Cross,
Kithaganahalli, Bommasandra Post,
Bangalore-560 099. ..... Petitioner
(By Sri.B.S.D. Adv.,)
-V/s-
1) United India Ins. Co. Ltd.,
T.P. Claim Hub, 5th and 6th Floor,
SCCH-19 2 MVC.9424/2024
Krushi Bhavana, Hudson Circle,
Bangalore-560 002.
Policy No.0704053123P111657584,
Valid from 14/12/2023 to 13/12/2024.
2) Mr. Shankar R.
R/at No.2/5, 4th Cross,
Magadi Road, Bangalore-23 ........ Respondents
(R.1 by Sri.K.H.D. Adv.,)
(R.2 - Exparte)
Date of Institution of Petition : 30-12-2024
Nature of Petition : U/Sec.166 of MV Act.
Date of Commencement of : 17-11-2025
Recording of Evidence
Date of pronouncement of : 17-03-2026
Judgment
Total Duration : Year Months Days
01 03 18
JUDGMENT
The petitioner filed this petition U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 for claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that, on 02-11-2024 at about 6.00 p.m. she was riding a Scooter bearing Reg.No.TN-70/AR-6296 on the extreme left side of NH-44 Road, Guest Line Hotel, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore SCCH-19 3 MVC.9424/2024 i.e., from Bangalore towards Hosur along with her son and she reached near NMK Hotel, at that time, all of a sudden the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-02/MD- 7778 stopped his vehicle on the middle of the road without giving any prior signals, due to the same, she applied sudden brake, but, lost control over her Scooter and moved towards ahead and dashed to the Car, due to tremendous impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries to her face, forehead and jaw.
3. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was taken to Sri. Sai Hospitals and treated as an inpatient. Later, she was treated at Neo Dental Clinic, Hosur, Tamil Nadu. Again she was treated at Neravu Health Care Centre for further management. It is further stated that, the petitioner is still bed ridden and under treatment, so far has spent Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical and other expenses. She has to undertake further treatment and has to incur future medical expenses also, She has suffered permanent disability, she is unable to lead a normal life as earlier.
4. It is further stated that prior to the accident, petitioner was hale and healthy and aged about 48 years, she was self employed as beautician trainer and earning Rs.45,000/- p.m. Due to the injuries, she was not doing SCCH-19 4 MVC.9424/2024 the work as earlier and she is facing great financial difficulties.
5. It is stated that the accident in question was due to the rash and negligence act of the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-02/MD-7778, against whom the Attibele Police have registered the case in Cr.No.436/2024. Hence, respondent No.1 being the Insurer and respondent No.2 being the Owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence, prayed to allow the petition.
6. In pursuance to the notice, respondent No.2 has not appeared before the Court, hence he placed Ex-parte.
7. Respondent No.1 has appeared through its counsel and filed its objection to the main petition and contended that, the driver of insured vehicle was not holding valid and effective DL. It is further contended that, the complaint was registered with the delay of 04 days. The offending Car was not at all involved in the accident, the petitioner has collusion with the owner of the offending Car has filed this false case against this respondent. The petitioner was not wearing helmet and not having valid and effective D.L.. The petitioner was riding with a rash and negligent manner and with high speed and lost control over her motorcycle and dashed against the Car SCCH-19 5 MVC.9424/2024 from behind. Further the insurer and owner of the motorcycle was not impleaded as party, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Further, denied the accident, age, income and occupation of the petitioner, medical expenses incurred by him and injuries sustained to him and also contended that, claim of the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. Except these things, all other averments made in the petition are all denied by the respondents. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.
8. On basis of the pleadings and materials, this Tribunal has framed the following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the petitioner proves that on 02-11-
2024 at about 6.00 PM, she was riding a Scooter bearing Reg.No.TN-70/AR-6296 on the extreme left side of NH-44, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore towards Hosur along with her son and reached near NMK Hotel, at that time, all of a sudden the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-02/MD-7778 stopped his vehicle on the middle of the road, without giving any prior indication or signal, due to this act of the Car driver, the petitioner suddenly applied brake but, she lost control over her Scooter and moved towards ahead and dashed behind the Car and caused the accident, due to tremendous impact the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries?
SCCH-19 6 MVC.9424/20242) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? if so, what is the quantum and from whom?
3) What order or award?
9. In order to prove the case, the petitioner got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked 20 documents as per Ex.P.1 to 20 and got examined the Medical Record Keeper at N.R.R. Hospital, Bangalore as PW.2 and got marked 04 documents as Ex.P.22 to P.25. Petitioner got examined the Doctor by name Dr. Manjula M. who is the Oral Maxillofacial & Cosmetic Surgeon at Chief Dental Health Office, Magadi, Bangalore South as PW.3 and got marked 02 documents as Ex.P.26 and P.27. On the other hand, the respondents have not examined any oral evidence and not marked any documents on their side.
10. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on hand.
11. For the following reasons, this Tribunal given answer to the above Issues as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative, Issue No.2 : In the Partly Affirmative Issue No.3 : As per final order for the following:SCCH-19 7 MVC.9424/2024
REASONS
12. ISSUE No.1: The petitioner filed this petition against the respondents for claiming compensation due to injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident, that occurred on 02-11-2024.
13. The petitioner got examined herself as PW.1 and reiterated the entire contention of petition and got marked 20 documents as Ex.P.1 to 20. Ex.P.1 is the copy of F.I.R. Ex.P.2 is the copy of Complaint, Ex.P.3 is the copy of Re- statement, Ex.P.4 is the copy of Spot Mahazar, Ex.P.5 is the copy of IMV Report, Ex.P.6 is the copy of Wound Certificate, Ex.P.7 is the copy of Notice U/Sec.133 of MV Act, Ex.P.8 is the Reply to the Notice, Ex.P.9 is the copy of Indemnity Bond, Ex.P.10 is the copy of Charge Sheet, Ex.P.11 is the copy of Aadhar Card of the petitioner, Ex.P.12 is the copy of D.L. Ex.P.13 is the Certificate of Award, Ex.P.14 is the Discharge Summary, Ex.P.15 is the Treatment Summary, Ex.P.16 and 17 are the CT Scan Reports, Ex.P.18 is the advance cum final settlement receipts, Ex.P.19 and Ex P.19(a) are the medical bills, Ex.P.20 is the prescriptions and Ex.P.21 is the OPD Cards. In the cross-examination she has stated that, she was moving at left side of the road at 30-40 speed. She didn't file a complaint because the car owner had assured to pay the hospital expenses, but he didn't pay the SCCH-19 8 MVC.9424/2024 expenses, therefore she files the complaint. Further denied that, the accident took place due to her negligence.
14. The petitioner got examined the Medical Record Keeper of N.R.R. Hospital, Bangalore as PW.2 and got marked 04 documents as Ex.P.22 to 25. Ex.P.22 is the Authorization Letter, Ex.P.23 is the copy of MLC, Ex.P.24 is the copy of Police Intimation and Ex.P.25 is the Inpatient Records.
15. The petitioner got examined Dr. Manjuna M. who is an Oral Maxillofacial & Cosmetic Surgeon at Chief Dental Health Office, General Hospital, Magadi, Bangalore South is examined as PW.3 and got marked 02 documents as Ex.P.26 and 27. Ex.P.26 is the OP Slips and Ex.P.27 is the X-ray.
16. Per contra, the respondents have not adduced any evidence and got marked no documents on their side.
17. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted his arguments by contending that, the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle. Hence, prayed to award the compensation.
18. Ld. Counsel for respondent No.1 has argued by contending that, there is a delay in lodging the First SCCH-19 9 MVC.9424/2024 information and vehicle is falsely implicated. Therefore, prays to dismiss the petition.
19. Respondent No.1 has contained that, there is a delay of 04 days in filing the complaint and vehicle has been implicated. PW1 has stated that, the complaint was not lodged because the car owner had assured to pay the hospital expenses, but he didn't pay the expenses, therefore, she files the complaint. Therefore it appears that, the delay in filing FIR is properly explained.
20. On perusal of Ex.P.5 the IMV report it appears that, Rear bumper, Right side tail lamp and indicato and Rear dickey door of the Car bearing Reg.No.TN-02/MD-7778 are damaged. Further it appears that, Front wheel mud guard, Head light assembly and indicators and Front both sides body and Speedo meter of the Scooter bearing Reg.No.TN-70/AR-6296 are damaged. So it clearly indicates that the offending vehicle involved in the accident.
21. On perusal of Ex.P.4-the Spot Mahazar and Ex.P.10 Charge Sheet, it appears that, the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the offending Car bearing Reg.No.KA-02/MD-7778, the driver of the said Car stopped his vehicle on the middle of the road without giving any prior indication or hand signal, due to this SCCH-19 10 MVC.9424/2024 sudden impact by the Car driver, the petitioner applied sudden brake but she lost control over her Scooter and moved towards ahead and dashed behind the Car, caused the accident, due to forced impact, Petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. On perusal of Ex.P.5 the IMV Report, it appears that the rear bumper damaged of the offending Car, right side tail lamp and indicator damaged and rear dickey door damaged. The scooter of the petitioner was damaged that front wheel mud guard, head light assembly and indicators, both side body and speedo meter damaged. Hence, it appears that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-02/MD-7778, so it clearly indicates that the offending vehicle involved in the accident. Further on perusal of charge sheet it discloses that, the Attibele Police have filed the case against the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-02/MD-7778 for the offence punishable U/Sec.125(a) and 281 of BNS.
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in 2011 SAR(Civil) 319 Kausum and others V/s Satbir and others held that, in the petition for compensation U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act.1988 the petitioner has to prove the incident only on the preponderance of the probabilities and standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt is not required.
SCCH-19 11 MVC.9424/202423. Respondent No.1 took contention that the respondent No.2 has violated the policy terms and conditions, but respondent No.1 not produced oral or documentary evidence to prove its contention. There is nothing on record to show that respondent No.2 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, this Tribunal is of considered opinion that respondent No.1 has not proved that respondent No.2 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy.
24. After careful scrutiny of Ex.P.1-F.I.R. Ex.P.2- Complaint, Ex.P.3-Re-statement, Ex.P.4-Spot Mahazar, Ex.P.5-IMV Report, Ex.P.6-Wound Certificate, Ex.P.7- Notice U/Sec.133 of MV Act, Ex.P.8-Reply to the Notice, Ex.P.9-Indemnity Bond, Ex.P.10-Charge Sheet, it appears that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of Car bearing Reg.No.KA-02/MD-7778. Hence, this Tribunal answered Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
25. ISSUE No.2:- The petitioner claiming the compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- with respect to injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. The petitioner produced wound certificate at Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.14 discharge summary issued by Sri Sai Hospital, Bangalore and prayed to award compensation amount.
SCCH-19 12 MVC.9424/2024The respondents not disputed the said documents. On perusal of the Wound Certificate at Ex.P.6, it is discloses that, forehead laceration (left side), multiple teeth broken and maxillary bone fracture (Alneolar Process). On perusal of the said injuries, the Doctor has opinion that the injuries are grievous in nature. Further, on perusal of Ex.P.14 discharge summary, wherein the diagnosis that, Head Injury with undisplaced chip fracture of the Alveolar process of maxillary bone upper molar multiple teeth broken in RTA. On perusal of Ex.P.16 CT Scan Report which shows that Soft tissue injury swelling in the left frontal scalp region. The petitioner was admitted on 02- 11-2024 and discharged on 04-11-2024. On perusal of Ex.P.15 treatment summary of NEO Dental Care, Hosur, it discloses that the petitioner has taken treatment in the said hospital periodically and bridge cementation was done on 07-12-2024. Therefore, taking all these facts and nature of injuries, as petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and admitted in the hospital, this Tribunal is of the opinion that, petitioner is entitled for compensation amount of Rs.60,000/- as reasonable compensation under the head of pain and suffering.
26. The petitioner produced advance cum final settlement receipts, medical bills and prescriptions, which are marked as Ex.P.18 to P.20 and P.19(a). As per the SCCH-19 13 MVC.9424/2024 said bills, the petitioner has spent Rs.1,41,863/- towards medical expenses. The respondents have not made out any grounds to disbelieve the medical bills. On perusal of the said medical bills and also considering the bills and also treatment taken by the petitioner in the hospital, the petitioner is entitled to claim the medical bills amount of Rs.1,41,863/- under the head of medical expenditure.
27. As per Ex.P.14 discharge summary the petitioner took treatment at Sri Sai Hospital, Bangalore from 02-11- 2024 to 04-11-2024 i.e., for 03 days. Therefore, by considering the period of treatment taken as inpatient this tribunal awarded reasonable compensation of Rs.4,500/- under the head Transportation, food, Nourishment and conveyance charges.
28. The petitioner contended that, due to facial injuries she was suffering from pain and mental agony and she is unable to carry on her day to day activities which she used to do prior to the accident. To prove the assessment of disability, the petitioner got examined one Dr. Manjula M. as PW-3. In the chief examination affidavit PW.3 deposed that, the petitioner came to her on 08-01-2026 for assessment of disability purpose and on examination she found that, she has suffered (a) Open bite, (b) Sensitivity in upper teeth, (c) Pain during chewing and SCCH-19 14 MVC.9424/2024 palpation and (d) Change in alignment of teeth. She examined the petitioner on Radiograph findings that, (a) 1/12 upper left central, lateral teeth missing and (b) FPD of seven units seen in X-ray and assessed the disability of loss of tooth 15%, Alveolar fracture of maxilla 08% and pain during chewing 05% and assessed the total disability at 28%. In the cross-examination admitted that, she is a Dentist, Specialized in Maxillofacial and Cosmetic Surgeon, she was not treated the petitioner. The loss of teeth of the petitioner is replaced. Previous X-rays are not available to show the loss of teeth. The petitioner has contended that she is a beautician. She has produced a certificate of award given by Chandras Makeover Academy. The petitioner has not produced any other cogent documents to show that she is running a business of beautician. PW.3 has not assessed any functional disability. However, by considering the nature of the wounds, condition of the petitioner and on evidence of the doctor, this Tribunal has considered the disability of the Petitioner at 5%.
29. The petitioner stated that, at the time of accident she was aged about 48 years and she was doing self employed as beautician and she used to earn a sum of Rs.45,000/-p.m. and due to injuries sustained in the accident, she cannot do any work as earlier. The SCCH-19 15 MVC.9424/2024 petitioner has not produced any documents to prove her income and avocation. Therefore, in present days the coolie worker get Rs.500/- to Rs.600/- per day. This accident is of the year 2024. However, by considering the age and occupation of petitioner this Tribunal taken the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.16,500/-.
30. As per Ex.P.11 and P.12 Notarized Copy of Adhar Card and D.L. the date of birth of the petitioner is 22-07- 1975 and 20-07-1975. Therefore, age of the Petitioner is taken as 49 years at the time of accident. Then the proper multiplier applicable is 13 which comes as follows:
Rs.16,500 x 12 x 13 x 5% = Rs.1,28,700/-
Hence, this Tribunal award Rs.1,28,700/- under the head loss of future earning capacity on account of disability.
31. The petitioner also sought for expenses towards future medicine for further treatment. In the chief- examination affidavit the petitioner deposed that, she is forced to spent huge amount for future medication. PW.3 doctor deposed in the chief affidavit that, the petitioner is said to be a Beautician and with the said disabilities she needs other surgeries Root canal treatment for 5 Teeth 21/345 and screws which would cost around Rs.40,000/-
SCCH-19 16 MVC.9424/2024to Rs.50,000/- in private set up (Upper right central, lateral incisors, left canine and premolars). However, by considering the age and nature of injuries and evidence of the doctor, this Tribunal has award reasonable compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head future medical expenses (Which does not carry any interest).
32. The petitioner stated that, prior to the accident she was working as beautician and she used to earn a sum of Rs.45,000/-p.m. and due to injuries sustained in the accident, she is unable to attend the work and facing financial difficulties. The petitioner had not produced any documents to prove her income and avocation. This accident occurred in the year 2024. However, by considering the age and nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Tribunal awarded reasonable compensation amount of Rs.30,000/- under the head loss of income during laid up period.
33. The petitioner sustained grievous injury as shown in the wound certificate. The petitioner was doing beautician work and due to accidental injuries her routine work was hampered for some days. Therefore, by considering this aspect and the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Tribunal awarded the amount of Rs.30,000/- as reasonable compensation under the head of loss of amenities.
SCCH-19 17 MVC.9424/202434. Considering oral evidence coupled with documentary evidence, it is just and proper to grant compensation as follows:
Sl.
Under the Heads Amount
No.
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 60,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs. 1,41,863/-
3. Transportation, Nourishment, Rs. 4,500/-
Conveyance and Attendant
charges.
4. Compensation on account of Rs. 1,28,700/-
permanent disability
5. Towards future medical Rs. 20,000/-
expenses
6. Loss of income during laidup Rs. 30,000/-
period.
7. Towards loss of amenities of Rs. 30,000/-
life
Total Rs. 4,15,063/-
The petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,15,063/-.
35. Interest:
In so far as awarding of interest on the compensation amount is concerned, in MFA.No.103557/2016 (between Sriram General Insurance Co. ltd., V/s Smt. Lakshmi & others, dd 20- SCCH-19 18 MVC.9424/2024 03-2018) the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru has held that as per Sec.34 of CPC the rate of interest that can be awarded on Judgments cannot be more than 6% p.a. and that since Sec.149 of M.V. Act provides for the interest on Judgments, the interest to be awarded in claim petitions has to be 6% p.a. and not more than that. Hence, this Tribunal has hold that the petitioner is entitled for interest @6% p.a., (excluding future medical expenses) from the date of petition till the date of payment.
36. Liability:-
Respondent No.1 is the Insurer and respondent No.2 is the RC Owner of the offending Car bearing Reg.No.KA-02/MD-7778. As discussed in the Issue No.1 it is proved that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle, hence Respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Further, the Respondent No.1 being Insurer of the offending vehicle is primarily held liable to pay the compensation amount with interest to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Tribunal answered Issue No.2 in the Partly Affirmative.
37. ISSUE No.3: For the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal proceed to pass the following:-
SCCH-19 19 MVC.9424/2024ORDER The claim petition filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby Partly allowed with cost as hereunder.
The petitioner is entitled for total compensation amount of Rs.4,15,063/- with interest @ 6% p.a.,(excluding future medical expenses) from the date of petition till its realization.
Respondent No.1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Further, Respondent No.1 being Insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the compensation amount together with 6% interest within 60 days, from the date of this order.
After deposit, entire compensation amount shall be released in favour of the petitioner with proper identification. (As petitioner has to incur some more amount for her future treatment) Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw the award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, then corrected by me and pronounced in open court on this the 17th day of March, 2026) Digitally signed MOHAN by MOHAN SADASHIV POL SADASHIV Date: (Mohan Sadashiv Pol) POL 2026.04.01 XV ASCJ & Member MACT, 13:07:52 +0530 Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Petitioner:
PW.1 : Smt. D.S. Manimala.
PW.2 : Sri. Ranganatha V.
PW.3 : Dr. Manjula M.
SCCH-19 20 MVC.9424/2024
List of documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P.1 : Copy of F.I.R. Ex.P.2 : Copy of Complaint. Ex.P.3 : Copy of Re-Statement. Ex.P.4 : Copy of Spot Mahazar. Ex.P.5 : Copy of IMV Report. Ex.P.6 : Copy of Wound Certificate. Ex.P.7 : Copy of Notice U/Sec.133 of MV Act. Ex.P.8 : Copy of Reply to the Notice. Ex.P.9 : Copy of Indemnity Bond. Ex.P.10 : Copy of Charge Sheet. Ex.P.11 : N/c of Aadhar Card of petitioner. Ex.P.12 : N/c of D.L. of petitioner. Ex.P.13 : Certificate of Award. Ex.P.14 : Discharge Summary. Ex.P.15 : Treatment Summary.
Ex.P.16 & 17 : CT Scan Reports (2 in Nos.) Ex.P.18 : Advance receipts(2 in Nos.) Ex.P.19 : Medical Bills (7 in Nos.) Ex.P.19(a) : Medical Bill.
Ex.P.20 : Prescriptions (7 in Nos.) Ex.P.21 : OPD Cards (4 in Nos.) Ex.P.22 : Authorization Letter. Ex.P.23 : C/c of MLC. Ex.P.24 : Copy of Police Intimation. Ex.P.25 : Inpatient Records. Ex.P.26 : OP Slips. Ex.P.27 : X-ray.
List of witnesses examined for Respondents:
NIL.
List of documents marked for Respondents: NIL.Digitally signed by MOHAN
MOHAN SADASHIV
POL
(Mohan Sadashiv Pol)
SADASHIV Date: XV ASCJ & Member MACT
POL 2026.04.01
13:07:59 Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
+0530