Bangalore District Court
Chandrashekar K G vs Slv Enterprises on 5 August, 2025
SCCH-08 1 MVC 6843/2023
KABC020325892023
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND
XII ADDL. SMALL CAUSES COURT & ACJM, BENGALURU
(SCCH 8)
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST - 2025
PRESENT: Smt. Kannika M.S.
M.A., LL.B.
XII ADDL. SCJ & ACJM,
MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU.
MVC No.6843/2023
Petitioner/s : Sri. Chandrashekar K.G.,
S/o. Ganeshmurthy,
Aged about 43 years
R/at No.75,
Kuluvanahalli, Sompura Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District.
(By Sri. Manjappa, Advocate)
:Vs:
Respondent/s 1. SLV Enterprises,
Prop. Narayanappa G.,
K.G. Krishnarajapura,
T. Begur post,
Kasaba Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District.
(By Sri A. Devaraju, advocate)
SCCH-08 2 MVC 6843/2023
2. The Manager,
ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.,
No.121, 9th Floor,
Estate Building, Dickson Road,
Bengaluru-1.
Road Roller bearing Reg. No.KA-52-N-
1715.
Policy No.3008/279691686/00/000
Covering from 09.02.2023 to
08.02.2024
(By Sri M.E. Madhu Sudhan,
advocate)
Date of institution : 16.10.2023
Nature of the Case : Seeking
Compensation/Award
Date of commencement of : 06.01.2025
Recording of evidence
Date of Judgment : 05.08.2025
pronounced
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident that took place on 30.09.2023.
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as follows:
On 30.09.2023 at about 11.30 a.m. when he was driving the Auto bearing No.KA-05-AB-8938 near Thonachenakuppe Bridge, Tumkur, Bengaluru NH-48 Road, Nelamangala Taluk, SCCH-08 3 MVC 6843/2023 Bengaluru Rural District, at that time, driver of the Road Roller bearing Reg. No.KA-52-N-1715 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly came from right side towards left side and stopped it in the middle of the road without giving any signal or indicator, hence the Auto dashed against the Roller. Due to the impact, the petitioner sustained injuries. Immediately, after the accident, petitioner was shifted to Harsha Hospital, wherein he took treatment for his accidental injuries. It is stated that he has spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards treatment, medicine etc.,
3. It is contended that prior to the accident, petitioner was hale and healthy and was working as a driver and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Due to the accidental injuries, he is unable to do the work as he was doing earlier and lost income. The accident in question was due to the rash and negligence of the driver of Road Roller bearing Reg. No.KA-52-N-1715. Hence, the 1 st respondent being the owner and 2nd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
4. On service of notice, both respondents have appeared before the court through their respective counsels, but only respondent No.2 has filed written statement.
5. The 2nd respondent in its objections has stated that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and hence the petition is liable to be dismissed. Further admitted the issuance insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-52-N-1715 and liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, provision of MV Act, valid and effective SCCH-08 4 MVC 6843/2023 driving licence held by the driver of the Auto, valid RC, permit and FC and also subject to the confirmation of Sec.64VB of the insurance Act. Respondent also seeks protection under section 147 and 149(2) of M.V. Act. It has also contended that owner and jurisdictional police have not complied the Sec.134(c) and Sec.158(6) of M.V. Act. It has denied the alleged negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Further contended that the compensation and interest claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. Hence on all these grounds, it has sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. Based on the pleadings, my predecessor in office has framed following issues:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 30.09.2023 at about 11.30 a.m., when he was driving the Auto bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AB-8938 from Mahimapura towards Nelamangala and when he reached near Thonachenakuppe Bridge, Tumkur-Bengaluru NH-48 road, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, at that time, driver of the Road Roller bearing Reg.
No.KA-52-N-1715 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly came from right side towards left side and stopped in the middle of the road without giving any signal or indicator, due to which he dashed against the Road Roller. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom?
3. What order or award?
SCCH-08 5 MVC 6843/20237. In order to prove the case, the petitioner got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 19 documents as per Ex.P1 to 19. On the other hand, respondent No.2 has examined its Manager Legal as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R1 document.
8. Heard the arguments.
9. My findings on the above issues as under:-
Issue No.1 ... Partly 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: The claim of the petitioner is that, on 30.09.2023 at about 11.30 a.m. when he was driving the Auto bearing No.KA-05-AB-8938 near Thonachenakuppe Bridge, Tumkur, Bengaluru NH-48 Road, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, at that time, driver of the Road Roller bearing Reg. No.KA-52-N-1715 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly came from right side towards left side and stopped it in the middle of the road without giving any signal or indicator, hence the Auto dashed against the Roller. Due to the impact, the petitioner sustained injuries. In order to prove his case, got examined himself as PW.1 and reiterated the averments of the petition and got marked F.I.R, F.I.S, Police requisition, Police intimation, spot mahazar, Seizure mahazar, sketch, wound certificate, two Notices under Sec.133 of MV Act, two Reply to notice under Sec.133 of MV Act, IMV report and Charge sheet as per Ex.P1 to 14.
SCCH-08 6 MVC 6843/202311. The respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending Road Roller bearing Reg. No.KA-52-N-1715 and 2nd respondent is the insurance company of the said vehicle. This Respondent has taken up a defence that the driver of auto was not having valid driving license as on the date of accident and the insured has willfully handed over the vehicle to the person who is not authorized to drive the offending vehicle. In order to prove their contention, respondent No.2 has examined one witness. Manager Legal of the respondent No.2 has been examined as RW.1 and she got marked Insurance policy at Ex.R1.
12. In the instant case on hand the petitioner in order to prove rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the Road roller has produced police documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 complaint and as per these record injured is the driver of the auto, who is the petitioner of this petition drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the road roller which was parked on the road side without any indications.
13. The documents which sheds light on the factum of negligence are Ex.P.5 and P6 being the Spot Mahazar and Seizer Mahazar and Ex.P7 Sketch prepared at the time of mahazar. On close perusal of the Ex.P5 to P7 it reflects that petitioner was driving auto bearing No.KA-05-AB- 8938 as driver, he drove auto in rash and negligent manner without observing the parked vehicle on road side of national highway road without any indication and dashed to right side of the road roller. This categorically reflects the negligence on the part of the petitioner who drove the auto and also driver of Road roller. Further more, the contents of Ex.P5 discloses that it is NH-48 which is 30 feet in width, the petitioner SCCH-08 7 MVC 6843/2023 who drove the auto towards the highway road without seeing the road roller which was parked on left side of the road, in the same manner the driver of the Road roller without any indication parked his vehicle in the highway road in negligent manner. Another important aspect this court does not loose sight of the fact that the accident had occurred due to negligent act of the both the vehicles, the petitioner/driver of the auto as well as Road rollers were aware of the highway rules, with due care and cautiously drove the vehicles, but no one has taken cautious.
14. Parking a vehicle on the road without indication, which can cause obstruction or inconvenience to other road users, is likely a violation of Section 122 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. If at all the driver of road roller had shown indication of parking, the petitioner who drove the Auto would have taken precautionary measures and he would have driven the vehicle in a slow manner and they could have avoided the accident. But the driver of auto/petitioner was unable to apply brake since he was driving his vehicle at a high speed and road roller parked without indication. Above all even the chargesheet was also filed as against the both the drivers of Auto/petitioner and road roller. This court is aware of the fact that chargesheet is not a conclusive proof to come to conclusion with regard to rash and negligent act. But having regard to the Ex.P.5 to P7 which is read in consonance with the Ex.P.14 Chargesheet it is crystal clear that there is an rash and negligent act of the drivers of the both vehicles. When such is the case in the light of evidence of PW.1 and compared with police documents categorically reflects as to the rashness and negligence on the part of both vehicles drivers.
SCCH-08 8 MVC 6843/202315. Though PW.1 cross-examined at length by the respondent No.2 but he withstood the rigor of cross-examination. This court is aware of the fact the charge sheet cannot be trusted as a holy document to come to the conclusion of the negligence. But in the instant case having regard to the other materials placed on record and other surrounding circumstances it is it is clearly forthcoming that the negligence on the part of the both the vehicles drivers. Consequently this tribunal hold that the accident is proved to have been caused due to the actionable negligence of the drivers of auto and road rollers and both have equally contributed to the accident.
Hence negligence is fixed on the drivers of Road Roller bearing Reg.No.KA-52-N-1715 and petitioner/driver of Auto bearing Reg.No.KA-50-AB-8938 in the ratio of 50:50 respectively. As such, I answer Issue No.1 as 'Partly in the Affirmative'.
16. Issue No.2: While answering issue No.1, I have already observed that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Road Roller bearing Reg. No.KA-52-N-1715 and petitioner/driver of Auto bearing Reg.No.KA-50-AB-8938 in the ratio of 50:50 respectively. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation. Now the quantum of compensation is to be ascertained on different heads.
17. LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS ON ACCOUNT OF PERMANENT DISABILITY:
The petitioner has not examined the doctor to prove the disability. Hence, he is not entitled for compensation for loss of future income on account of permanent disability.SCCH-08 9 MVC 6843/2023
18. PAIN AND SUFFERINGS:
Petitioner has produced wound certificate at Ex.P8 which reveals that the petitioner has sustained Laceration over forehead. The doctor has opined that, the said injury is simple in nature and. Further the Ex.P19 Discharge Summary of Harsha Hospital reveals that petitioner was treated as an inpatient in the said hospital from 30.09.2023 to 02.10.2023 for a period of 3 days. Considering these aspects, I deem it just and proper to award Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings.
19. MEDICAL EXPENSES:
The petitioner has produced medical bill worth Rs.18,633/- as per Ex.P15. I have examined the said bill. Since the petitioner was treated as inpatient and undergone treatment, there are no reasons to disbelieve the amount spent by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.18,633/- and he is entitled for the same.
20. ATTENDANT, CONVEYANCE, FOOD & NOURISHMENT AND OTHER INCIDENTAL EXPENSES:
As the petitioner was treated as an inpatient for a period of 3 days, certainly he might have spent amount towards conveyance, attendant charges, nourishing food and other incidental expenses and also at the time of subsequent follow up treatment. Considering these aspects, I deem it proper to award Rs.10,000/- under this head.
21. LOSS OF INCOME DURING LAID UP PERIOD:
According to the petitioner, he is working as a driver and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. But, the petitioner has not SCCH-08 10 MVC 6843/2023 produced any document to show his income. In the absence of document of income, the court has to consider the notional income of the petitioner. The incident occurred during the year 2023. Therefore, I deem it just and proper to consider the notional income of the petitioner as Rs.16,000/- p.m. The evidence on record reveals that petitioner has sustained head injury. Considering the injury sustained to the petitioner and treatment taken by him, he might not have attended his work at least for a period of two months. Hence, petitioner is entitled for the compensation of Rs.32,000/- on the above head.
22. LOSS OF AMENITIES IN LIFE/LIFE COMFORTS AND EXPECTANCY OF LIFE:
There is no evidence on record to show that petitioner has sustained the disability. Therefore, he is not entitled for compensation on this head.
Thus in all, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation as here under:
Sl.
Head of Compensation Amount
No.
1. Pain and Sufferings Rs. 20,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs. 18,633/-
3. Conveyance, food and 10,000/-
nourishment, attendant
charges and other
incidental expenses.
4. Loss of income during laid Rs. 32,000/-
up period
Total Rs. 80,633/-
Less: Contributory Negligence Rs. 40,316.50
SCCH-08 11 MVC 6843/2023
of the petitioner @ 50%
Total Compensation payable by Rs. 40,316.50
the 2nd respondent
In total, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,316.50 which is rounded off to Rs.40,317/-
23. The petitioner is claiming interest on the compensation amount. The respondents have denied the same. Our Hon'ble High Court in the case rendered in Vijay Ishwar Jadhav and others Vs Ulrich Belchior Fernandes and another (MFA.No.100090/2014 C/W MFA.No.25107/2013 dated 07.03.2018), has held that in the absence of any other law relating to interest on judgments, the MACT has to follow the provisions of Sec.34 of C.P.C and awarded interest @ 6% p.a. Considering the aforesaid decision, I deem it proper to award interest at 6% per annum on the above compensation amount excluding the future medical expenses.
24. Liability: Regarding fixation of liability is concerned, I have already observed that the accident was taken place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Road Roller bearing Reg. No.KA-52-N-1715. Hence, 1st respondent being the owner and 2 nd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The 2 nd respondent being the insurer shall indemnify the 1st respondent in payment of compensation amount. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 partly in the Affirmative.
25. Issue No.3: In view of my findings on issues No.1 and 2, I pass the following:
SCCH-08 12 MVC 6843/2023ORDER The petition is allowed in part with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,317/-(Rupees forty thousand three hundred and seventeen only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation.
The Respondent No.2 is liable to pay and directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of award.
Entire compensation amount awarded to the petitioner shall be released to the petitioner through NEFT/RTGS by way of E-payment on proper identification and due verification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 5th day of August 2025) (Kannika M.S.) XII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner:
P.W.1 : Sri Chandrashekar K.G., SCCH-08 13 MVC 6843/2023 Documents marked on behalf of the petitioner:
Ex.P.1 FIR Ex.P.2 First Information Statement Ex.P.3 Police requisition Ex.P.4 Police Intimation Ex.P.5 Spot Mahazar Ex.P.6 Seizure mahazar Ex.P.7 Spot sketch Ex.P.8 Wound certificate Ex.P.9 & 10 Notices under Sec.133 of IMV Act Ex.P.11 &12 Reply to notices under Sec.133 of IMV Act Ex.P.13 IMV report Ex.P.14 Charge sheet Ex.P.15 Medical bills Ex.P.16 Medical prescriptions Ex.P.17 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of PW.1 Ex.P.18 Notarized copy of Driving licence of PW.1 Ex.P.19 Discharge summary
Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents:
RW.1 Ms. Swathi Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R1 Insurance policy
(Kannika M.S.)
XII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes &
Member MACT,
Bengaluru.
*********