Bangalore District Court
Md Ibaran Alias Mohammed Ibaran Alias ... vs Mohan Kumar D on 1 September, 2025
KABC020480952024
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU.
(SCCH-24)
Presided Over by Smt. Roopashri, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACJM,
MEMBER - MACT,
BENGALURU.
Dated:- This the 1st day of September 2025
M.V.C. No.5848 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
Sri. MD Ibaran @ Mohammed Ibaran @ Imbran
S/o Md Ijajul,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at Guru House,
Behind Aradana Hotel,
Shanthilala Layout, Magadi main road,
Seegehalli Gate, Bangalore.
Also Native Place at Ward No.65, Mabbi,
Maguragarh,
Samastipur, Mangalgarh,
Bihar -848208.
(By Sri.K P Shivalingaiah, Advocate)
- Vs -
RESPONDENT/S
1. Sri Mohan Kumar D
S/o Doddaiah,
SCCH-24 2 MVC No.5848/2024
Aged about 26 years,
R/at No.517, 4th main road,
4th cross,
Kanteeravanagara, Nandhini Layout,
Bangalore -560 0096.
2. The Regional Manager,
ICICI Lombord General Insurance,
Office at No.121, 9th floor,
The Estate, Dickesion Road,
FM Kariyappa Colony,
Sivanchetti Gardens,
Bangalore -560 042.
(Insurer to the Motorcycle bearing
Reg.No.KA-02-KM-4036
vide policy No.3006/O/288514752/00/B00
Policy period from 21-04-2024 to 20-04-2024)
(R1- Exparte)
R2-By Sri.Manoj Kumar M R,
advocate)
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:-
That on 19-04-2024 at about 9-00 pm., the petitioner as pedestrian, was walking from Seegehalli SCCH-24 3 MVC No.5848/2024 gate to Shanthilal Layout, Magadi- Bangalore main road and when he reached opposite Shanthilal Layout gate, Seegenahalli, Bangalore, at that time the rider of the motorcycle bearing reg.No.KA-02-KM-4036 came from Bangalore to Magadi side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner from behind result of which the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Sri Lakshmi Hospital, Sunakdakatte wherein first aid treatment was given and then shifted to Boss Hospital, Kamakshipalya, Bangalore wherein admitted as an inpatient for a period of 4 days. So far the petitioner has spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses and for incidental charges.
3. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy. He was aged about 26 years. He was working as a buffing work as own work and earning monthly Rs.30,000/- per month. Due to the permanent disability, he is not in a position to do the said work. He has suffered pain and sufferings, permanent disability & loss of income.
4. In spite of service of notice, the respondent No.1/ the R.C. owner of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-
SCCH-24 4 MVC No.5848/202402-KM-4036 has remained absent. Hence he was placed exparte.
5. Respondent no.2/the insurer of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-02-KM-4036 has filed written statement and denied the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident and submitted that the accident in question has occurred while the petitioner was crossing the road unmindfully without observing the vehicular movement and that though the accident in question has occurred due to the negligent act on the part of the petitioner and though he was hit by unknown vehicle but in collusion with the complainant/informant who is not an eyewitness as well as with the respondent no.1 and rider of the motorcycle, the offending vehicle is falsely implicated in the present case. The respondent no.2 further contended that at the time of accident the rider of the motorcycle was not holding valid driving license and thereby violated the policy condition and there is delay of two days in lodging the complaint, hence submitted to dismiss the claim petition.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues are framed:
SCCH-24 5 MVC No.5848/2024Issues
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he had sustained grievous injuries in the RTA alleged to have occurred on 19-04-
2024 at about 9-00 p.m., opp Shanthilal gate, Seegehalli gate, Magadi - Bangalore main road, Bangalore, due to rash and negligence riding of the rider of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-02-KM- 4036?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom?
3. What Order or Award?
7. The petitioner got examined himself as Pw1 and got examined two witnesses as P.W.2 and PW.3 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. The respondent no.2 has examined its Manager-Legal Department as RW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.
8. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.2 and perused the entire materials placed on record.
9. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
SCCH-24 6 MVC No.5848/2024Issue No.1: In the Affirmative Issue No.2: Partly in the affirmative. Issue No.3: As per final order, for the following;
REASONS
10. Issue No.1 : - In order to explain the actionable negligence of the rider of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-02-KM-4036, the P.W.1 has filed his affidavit explaining the vivid picture of the accident that took place on 19-04-2024 at about 9-00 pm., when the petitioner as pedestrian, was walking from Seegehalli gate to Shanthilal Layout, Magadi- Bangalore main road and when he reached opposite Shanthilal Layout gate, Seegenahalli, Bangalore, at that time the rider of the motorcycle bearing reg.No.KA-02-KM-4036 (herein after called the offending vehicle) came from Bangalore to Magadi side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner from behind result of which the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. P.W.1 further deposed about the nature of injuries sustained, treatment taken and the amount spent for treatment etc.
11. In support of the claim and to prove the rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle, the P.W.1 SCCH-24 7 MVC No.5848/2024 has relied upon Ex.P1 to 7 which are the police records such as FIR with complaint, statement of petitioner, Spot mahazar with photos, notice u/Sec. 133 of IMV Act and reply given there on, Wound certificate, IMV report, charge sheet, etc.,
12. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Shivakumar case has been registered against the rider of offending vehicle in Crime No.0133/2024 of Tavarekere Police Station, Ramanagara Dist., for the offence punishable under section 279, 337 of IPC & u/Sec.187 of MV Act. The investigation officer after investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of offending vehicle for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337 IPC and Sec.181 of M.V. Act.
13. So far as delay in lodging the complaint is concerned, it is true that accident in question has occurred on 19-04-2024 and complaint came to be lodged on 21-04-2024. In the complaint the reason for delay has been explained stating that complainant who is the friend of the petitioner was engaged in providing treatment to the petitioner. If the medical documents are perused, though the complaint was lodged two days after the accident but petitioner has taken treatment SCCH-24 8 MVC No.5848/2024 soon after the accident on the history of RTA. Hence, the reason assigned for delay can be accepted and petitioner has assigned valid reason for delay in lodging the complaint.
14. So far as involvement of offending vehicle in the accident is concerned, the respondent no.1 who is the owner of the offending vehicle has not disputed the involvement of his vehicle in the accident. If the IMV report is perused, the front head light assemble of the offending vehicle is damaged. It is not made known by the respondents as to how the front head light assembly of the offending vehicle was damaged if not on account of the accident. Further the respondent no.2 has not taken any steps to examine the rider of the offending vehicle to elicit from his mouth that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. Admittedly, after investigating charge sheet was filed against the rider of the motorcycle and the respondent no.1 has not challenged the charge sheet. Hence, materials placed on record clearly proves the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident.
15. So far as rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle is concerned, as per the police SCCH-24 9 MVC No.5848/2024 documents, the accident in question has occurred on the extreme left side of the road. The width of the road at the spot of accident is nearly 25 feet. The petitioner was a pedestrian and the offending vehicle e is a two wheeler. When the width of the road is nearly 25 feet there was no necessity for the rider of the offending vehicle to take his vehicle on the extreme left side of the road. It is not the case of the respondents that there was a pedestrian road and the petitioner without using the pedestrian road has stepped down to the tar road. In the spot mahazar there is mention about existence of drainage on both side of the road. When there is a drainage by the side of the road, the petitioner has to use the tar road. Hence, the materials placed on record clearly proves that the accident in question has occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle. Hence, Issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
16. Issue No.2:- The petitioner has given evidence to the effect of his sustained grievous injuries. As observed earlier, petitioner has produced medical documents i.e., Wound certificate and Discharge summary which are at Ex.P5 and Ex.P8. On going through the medical documents, it reveals that SCCH-24 10 MVC No.5848/2024 petitioner has taken treatment at Boss Multi Specialty Hospital as an inpatient from 19-04-2024 to 22-04- 2024 for a period of 4 days. As per the wound certificate, the petitioner has sustained three injuries of which injury no.1 is grievous in nature and injury no.2 and 3 are simple in nature.
17. Mahesh Kumar/ Medical Record Technician at Boss Hospital, Bengaluru is examined as PW.2 and through him Inpatient case sheet and x-ray film are got marked as Ex.P14 and Ex.P15.
18. Dr. S.A. Somashekara, the Orthopaedic Surgeon at Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru is examined as Pw3 and through him out book and X-ray are got marked as Ex.P.16 and Ex.P17. P.W.3 has deposed that he examined the petitioner on 02-04-2025 clinically, radiologically for disability assessment. PW.3 further deposed that petitioner has sustained permanent physical disability of right lower limb at 36% and whole body disability at 18%. PW.3 further deposed that the petitioner needs surgery for removal of implant which would cost around Rs.40,000/- in Private set up.
19. If the evidence of PW.3 is perused, he is not a treated doctor. Further as per the evidence of PW.3 the SCCH-24 11 MVC No.5848/2024 fracture is united. There is no infection in the fracture sight. The petitioner has appeared before the court independently without any bodies support to give evidence. The PW.3 has not verified the document for the follow up treatment taken by the petitioner. If petitioner had taken follow up treatment definitely he would have shown the documents to that effect to the PW.3. As per judgment reported in 2014 (4) Kar.L.J 157 Vijaya Kumar Alias Babu Rao Vs The Secretary, Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Balki, Taluk the normal rule would be disability in the lower limb would be 1/3rd of the particular limb. Hence, this court inclines to consider the disability of petitioner at 10% by referring the aforesaid judgment so also by considering the evidence of the PW.3.
20. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, period of treatment taken, this court is of the opinion that petitioner is entitled for compensation under different heads.
21. Towards pain and sufferings, petitioner shown to have sustained one grievous injury and two simple injuries. Hence taking in to consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the SCCH-24 12 MVC No.5848/2024 time taken for treatment and sufferings during the treatment, it is reasonable to hold that petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.65,000/- towards pain and suffering.
22. So far as the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner are concerned, he has produced medical bills for Rs.83,110/- as per Ex.P.11. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the head medical expenses to the tune of Rs.83,110/-.
23. It is stated that petitioner was aged about 26 years and he was doing buffing work and earning sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. But to substantiate the said contention petitioner has not produced any materials. Hence this court considering the age of the petitioner, the year of accident and place of residence of the petitioner takes the income of the petitioner at Rs.16,500/- p.m.
24. The petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and has taken treatment for 4 days as inpatient in Boss Hospital, Bangalore. Hence the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner which is grievous in nature it is reasonable to hold that period of three months as complete laid down period. Hence taking into SCCH-24 13 MVC No.5848/2024 consideration the avocation of the petitioner and loss of income caused from the said avocation this court takes the loss of income during laid down period as Rs.16,500/- p.m. for three months. Hence petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.49,500/- (Rs.16,500X2) towards loss of income during the laid down period .
25. From the evidence of Pw1 and as borne out by medical records, petitioner has taken treatment at Boss Hospital. Further for 4 days of hospitalization requires an attendant, was traveled to hospital for treatment. He has taken nourishment and needs further nourishment at this age and incurred other incidental expenses. Therefore all together incidental expenses is assessed at Rs.25,000/- taking in to consideration the cost of living and value of the money during the year 2024.
26. The petitioner has contended that he is aged about 26 years as on the date of accident. Petitioner has produced Ex.P9/Aadhaar card of the petitioner which shows his date of birth as 01-01-1998 that means he was aged about 26 years. Hence, this court has taken the age of the petitioner as 26 years.
27. So taking in to consideration the monthly income of the petitioner having considered by this SCCH-24 14 MVC No.5848/2024 tribunal as Rs.16,500/- p.m. and by considering the evidence of PW.3 even though he has assessed disability at 18% but this court inclines to take the disability on whole body at 10% and when the age of the petitioner at the time of accident was 26 years, as per Sarla Varma's case the multiplier applicable to the age group of 26 to 30 is at 17'. So by applying the multiplier '17' the future loss of income due to disability comes to Rs.3,36,600/- (i.e., 16,500 x10% x 17 x12 )-. Hence this Tribunal holds that the petitioner is entitled for Rs.3,36,600/- towards future loss of income due to disability.
28. So far as future medical expense is concerned, even though PW.3 has deposed that petitioner needs surgery for removal of implant which would cost around Rs.40,000/- in private set up, but admittedly PW.3 has not given estimation. Hence, this court awards compensation under the head future medical expenses to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.
29. The petitioner at his age of 26 years has suffered grievous injuries. Hence taking in to consideration the said aspect the petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities and discomforts. The Petitioner is entitled compensation under the following heads:
SCCH-24 15 MVC No.5848/2024Sl.No Heads Amount Rs.
1. Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 65,000/-
2. Towards Conveyance, Attendant Rs. 25,000/-
charges and nourishing food
3. Towards loss of income during Rs. 49,500/-
laid up period
4. Medical expenses Rs. 83,110/-
5. Future loss of income Rs.3,36,600/-
6. Future medical expenses Rs. 20,000/-
7. Loss of amenities and discomfort Rs. 30,000/-
Total Rs.6,09,210/-
Therefore, this court holds that petitioner is entitled for Rs.6,09,210/- (Rupees Six Lakh Nine Thousand Two Hundred Ten only).
30. So far as the liability of insurance company to pay the compensation is concerned, it is not in dispute that offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.2 and policy was in force as on the date of accident. So far as the rider holding valid driving license is concerned, it is vehemently submitted by the Learned counsel for respondent no.2 that as on the date of accident the rider was not holding valid driving license and respondent no.1 being the owner having knowledge that rider was not holding valid driving license permitted the rider to ride the offending vehicle and SCCH-24 16 MVC No.5848/2024 thereby violated the policy condition. Hence, respondent no.2 is not liable to pay the compensation.
31. The petitioner has seriously refuted the said contention taken by the respondent no.2 and submitted that, as on the date of accident the rider was holding valid driving license to ride the motorcycle and respondent no.2 in order to escape from the liability now contending that the rider was not holding valid driving license and that the respondent no.2 has not issued notice to the owner/respondent no.1 to produce the driving license rider of the offending vehicle and they have not examined the RTO to prove that the rider was not holding valid driving license, hence merely on the bald statement of the respondent no.2 it cannot be concluded that rider was not holding valid driving license. It is further submitted that even if for any reason this court comes to the conclusion that the rider was not holding valid driving license then also at the first instance the respondent no.2 has to pay the compensation and to recover the amount from the respondent no.1 under pay and recovery.
32. In order to prove that the rider was not holding valid driving license, the respondent no.2 has SCCH-24 17 MVC No.5848/2024 relied upon notice u/Sec. 133 of IMV Act and reply given thereto, charge sheet etc.,
33. It is true that respondent no.2 has not issued notice to the respondent no.1 to produce the driving license of the rider of offending vehicle and they have not examined the RTO to prove that as on the date of accident rider was not holding valid driving license but if the reply to the notice u/Sec.133 of MV Act is perused, the respondent no.1 being the owner has not furnished the particulars of the Driving license and he has kept the said column blank. If really, the driving license of the rider was valid and in force as on the date of accident, definitely the respondent no.1 in the Ex.P4 would have furnished the particulars of the driving license of the rider of offending vehicle. Further respondent no.1 on service of summons from the court has remained absent. If really driving license was in force, then nothing prevented the respondent no.1 from producing the driving license of the rider of the motorcycle. Further admittedly charge sheet was filed against the rider of the motorcycle even for offence u/Sec. 181 of IMV Act. Hence, from the materials placed on record it can be said that as on the date of SCCH-24 18 MVC No.5848/2024 accident the rider was not holding the valid driving license.
34. Now at this juncture it would be relevant to refer here the judgment relied by the learned counsel for respondent no.2 reported in SLP (Civil) NO.11757/2025 between Mahaveer Vs. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., & Ors. In the said case, it was the defence of the Insurance company that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving license, hence they are not liable to pay the compensation. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "it is neither for the Insurance company to prove the negative nor is it possible to presume based only on the charge sheet filed, the entrustment of the vehicle by the owner, which charge is on the rash and negligent driving of the driver. What assumes significance is that despite the owner of the vehicle having been a party before the Tribunal, no evidence was given. The owner did not mount the witness box nor was any license produced either of the person who was driving the vehicle or the person to whom it was entrusted. The owner thus failed to prove that the vehicle was entrusted to a person having valid license.
SCCH-24 19 MVC No.5848/202435. The learned counsel for respondent no 2 has submitted that subsequent to the amendment no pay and recovery can be ordered. It is submitted by the learned counsel that, the right to recover compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle flows from the proviso attached to sub section (4) of section 149 of M.V. Act 1988 has been omitted by Act of 2019 and therefore in case of a breach of policy, it is only the owner against whom award can be directly made and insurer is liable to be relieved from any liability to indemnify the owner.
36. The Learned counsel at this juncture has refereed the judgment in MFA No. 3297/2019 between Smt. Adilakshmammama & Ors., Vs. Sri Raju B & Anr., In the said case, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving license and the Hon'ble High Court exonerated the insurance company from the liability. In the said case, the accident in question has occurred prior to the amendment.
37. In MFA No. 6154/2019 (MV-D) between Hemalatha @ Hema @ Hemavathi and others vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company LTD., and another.
SCCH-24 20 MVC No.5848/2024In the said case, the driver of offending vehicle was not at all holding driving license. In the given set of fact, the Hon'ble High Court by interpreting the observation made in the Swaran Singh's, Pappu's and Shamanna's case has observed that in the aforesaid three cases the driver of the offending vehicle had driving license but as on the date of accident the driving license was not in force hence pay and recover was ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme court against the insurance company, but in the case which was before the Hon'ble High Court, the rider/driver of the offending vehicle was not holding driving license at all. Hence, the Hon'ble High Court has ordered the owner of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation even without ordering for pay and recover.
38. Per contra the learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that even though accident in question has occurred subsequent to the amendment to MV Act but pay and recovery still be ordered against the Insurance Company.
39. The Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the orders passed in First Appeal No. 1776/2024 between ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd., VS.
SCCH-24 21 MVC No.5848/2024Smt. Arti Devi & 4 Ors., wherein it was observed that "mere omission of proviso attached to sub-section (4) of Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 after its replacement by Section 150 of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (32 of 2019), neither takes away the liability of the insurer to pay the claimants nor its right to recover the said amount from the owner. The law to this effect remains intact and unaffected by Amendment Act, 2019 and hence, insurer shall continue to indemnify the owner's risk in relation to accidents taking place after 01-04-2022 and "PAY & RECOVER" principle will still continue to govern the field advancing social object of the Statute protecting third party interest. Principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and others, JT 2004 (1) SC 109 has not lost its significance and binding effect despite omission of proviso".
40. On perusal of the document, the accident in question has occurred on 19-04-2024 i.e, subsequent to the amendment dated 1-4-2022. Now at this juncture it would be relevant to refer here the judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No.3593-94 of 2024 between Rajesh Mitra and another V/s Karnani Properties Ltd., wherein SCCH-24 22 MVC No.5848/2024 reference was made of case in Goutam Dey V/s Jyotsna Chetterji reported in 2012 Online Culcutta 642 wherein it was held that, "The New statute with touches upon the existing rights cannot be retrospective, without an express provision or necessary implication expressing the clear intent of the legislature". It was further observed that the enforcement of the new statute Ipso facto will not take away the rights already accrued under a repealed statute, unless this intention is reflected in the new statute.
41. Further in 2025 AFC 14110 between ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., V/s Smt.Arti Devi and 8 others decided on 31-01-2025, in the said appeal question of law raised is in the light of motor vehicles (amendment) Act 2019, wherein question is also raised as to whether mere omission of proviso attached to sub section (4) of section 149 of M.V. Act 1988 after its replacement by section 150 by amendment Act 2019 would mean that, the liability of the insurer to pay and its right to recover the amount from the owner has been taken away and does not survive in relation to accident occurring after 1-4-2022. The Hon'ble High court of judicature at Allahabad after elaborately discussing the purposive interpretation of statute, concept of pay and SCCH-24 23 MVC No.5848/2024 recovery, leading authority has arrived at the conclusion that "Mere omission of proviso attached to sub section (4) of Section 149 of M.V. Act 1988 after its replacement by section 150 of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 2019, neither takes away the liability of the insurer to pay the claimants nor its right to recover the said amount from the owner. The law to this effect remains intact and un-effected by amendment Act 2019 and hence, insurer shall continue to indemnify the owner's risk in relation to accident taking place after 1-4-2022 and PAY AND RECOVER principle will still continue to govern the field advancing social object of the statute protecting third party interest. The principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Ins. Co. Ltd., V/s Swarna Singh and others has not lost its significance and binding effect despite omission of proviso."
42. Now at this juncture it would be relevant to refer here the judgment rendered by Hon'ble High Court Karnataka in MFA No. 202104/2024 disposed on 19- 09-2024 between the Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard Nibhaye Vadde General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Pooja & Ors., In the said case also the accident in question was SCCH-24 24 MVC No.5848/2024 occurred subsequent to the amendment i.e., on 21-08- 2022 and in the said case also the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license to drive the vehicle. The Hon'ble High Court in the given set of fact has observed that even though there is violation of policy condition by the owner of the lorry but as MV Act is a benevolent legislation, the claimants cannot be deprived of the compensation so awarded. Therefore, the Hon'ble High Court has directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation, as the policy was in force as on the date of accident and Insurance company has to indemnify the said compensation so awarded and to recover the same from the owner of the lorry by executing the award against to him.
43. By referring the aforesaid judgment the learned counsel for petitioner has argued that, even if section 149 (4) of M.V. Act is omitted but there is no specific reference in the amendment to M.V. Act dated 1-4-2022 regarding deletion of the principle of pay and recovery.
44. In the present case it is proved by the respondent no.2 that as on the date of accident, the rider had no valid driving license to ride the vehicle and SCCH-24 25 MVC No.5848/2024 thereby there is breach of policy condition. But by relying upon the observation made in the aforesaid judgments, this court orders the insurance company to pay the compensation amount and then to recover the amount from the owner under the principle of pay and recovery. Hence by fastening liability on the respondent no.2 this court directs the respondent no.2 to pay compensation to the petitioners along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of accident till the date of payment of entire amount and to recover the said amount from the Respondent no.1. Accordingly Issue No. 2 is answered.
45. Issue No.3: In the light of findings given on Issue No.1 and 2, my finding on this issue is as per the following final order.
ORDER The claim petition filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,09,210/- (Rupees Six Lakh Nine Thousand Two Hundred Ten only) with interest at 6% per annum SCCH-24 26 MVC No.5848/2024 on Rs.5,89,210/- from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation along with interest within two months from the date of award and to recover the said amount from the respondent no.1/owner of the offending vehicle.
On deposit of the said amount and interest, 50% of compensation payable to the petitioner shall be deposited in his name in any nationalized bank of the choice of petitioner for a period of 3 years and the remaining 50% shall be released to the petitioner through E-payment on proper identification.
Advocates' fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 1st day of September 2025.) (ROOPASHRI) XXII Addl. SCJ & ACJM Bengaluru.
SCCH-24 27 MVC No.5848/2024ANNEXURE List of witness examined on behalf of petitioner:-
PW.1 - Mr. M D Ibaran @ Mohammed Ibaran @ Imbran PW.2 - Mahesh Kumar S PW.3 - Dr. S.A. Somashekar List of documents marked on behalf of petitioner:-
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR with Complaint. Ex.P2 True copy of statement of petitioner. Ex.P3 True copy of of Spot Mahazar with photos. Ex.P4 True copy of Notice u/Sec.133 of IMV Act and reply given there on.
Ex.P5 True copy of Wound Certificate.
Ex.P6 True copy of IMV report. Ex.P7 True copy of Charge Sheet. Ex.P8 Discharge Summary. Ex.P9 Notarized copy of Aadhar card. (Compared
with original and original is returned to the party.) Ex.P10 Medical Prescriptions. 5 in nos.
Ex.P11 Medical Bills. 7 in nos.
Ex.P12 Original advance receipts 4 in nos.
Ex.P13 Authorization letter
Ex.P14 Inpatient case sheet
Ex.P15 X-ray film 2 in nos
Ex.P16 OPD Book
Ex.P17 X-ray
SCCH-24 28 MVC No.5848/2024
List of witness examined on behalf of respondents:-
RW.1 Roshni Ashwitha List of documents marked on behalf of respondents:-
Ex.R1 Authorization letter
Ex.R2 Insurance policy
Ex.R3 Copy of notice u/Sec. 133 and reply
XXII Addl. SCJ & ACJM
Bengaluru.