Bangalore District Court
Adarsh G vs Vijay Kumar K V on 23 June, 2025
KABC020227322023
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES BENGALURU
(SCCH-18)
Dated: This the 23rd day of June 2025
Present: DHANESH MUGALI
B.Com., LL.B., (Spl.)
III ADDL. JUDGE &
MEMBER, MACT
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
M.V.C. No.5056/2023
Petitioner : Shri Adarsh G.,
Son of Ganesh B.,
Aged about 26 years,
Residing at No.12,
Kanthi Nilaya,
20th 'G' cross, Ejipura,
Viveknagar Post,
Bengaluru South,
Bengaluru-560 047.
(Pleader by Shri Mohan Kumar
H.G.)
V/s
Respondents: 1.Shri K.V.Vijay Kumar,
Son of Venkatesh K.P.,
No.116, Bagaslur Road,
Byrathi Bande,
2 SCCH-18 MVC 5056/2023
Shri Krishna Nagar,
Kannur,
Benglauru-562 149.
(By Pleader Shri R.P.Naresh Babu)
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Co. Ltd., No.121,
The Estate, 9th floor,
Dickenson road, M.G.Road,
Bengaluru-560 042.
(By Pleader Shri Kiran Pujar)
*****
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the damages caused to his vehicle KTM Bike bearing registration No.KA-01-JN-1175 in a road traffic accident.
The brief facts of the petitioner's case are as under:
2. That on 23.5.2023 at about 10.30 a.m. the petitioner was riding his KTM bike bearing registration No.KA-01-JN-1175 on the extreme left side on Hennur-Benglauru main road slowly and cautiously by observing the traffic rules and regulations, when he reached near Sun Shine Hospital, Kothanur, Bengaluru. At that time, rider of 3 SCCH-18 MVC 5056/2023 scooter bearing registration No.KA-03-KD-1399 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, came to his extreme right side and dashed against the petitioner's vehicle. Due to the said impact, KTM Bike was badly damaged.
3. It is further stated that, after motor vehicle inspection, the petitioner has shifted his bike to M/s Khivaraj Motors, No.10/2, Kasturba road, Bengaluru. He has spent Rs.44,109/- towards towing charge, replacement of damaged parts, tinkering, painting, repair charges, conveyance and other incidental charges. During the said period the petitioner is forced to engage private vehicle and incurring huge amount to attend his duty. The said bike was in the garage for a period of one month.
4. It is stated that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-03-KD-1399. Hence, the jurisdictional Hennur Traffic police have registered a criminal case against rider of said vehicle in Cr.No.67/2023. As such, the respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay 4 SCCH-18 MVC 5056/2023 compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed the instant petition, seeking compensation.
5. After service of summons, respondents have appeared through their respective counsel & filed their written statements.
6.The respondent No.1 in his written statement contended that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner and not on the part of the rider of the scooter bearing No.KA-03-KD-1399. Further stated that this respondent is the R.C. owner of the scooter bearing No.KA-03-KD-1399 and the respondent No.2 being the insurer the policy was in force as on the date of accident. With all these grounds prayed to dismiss the petition against the respondent No.1.
7. The respondent No.2 filed the written statement and admitted about the issuance of policy in respect of scooter bearing registration No.KA-03-
KD-1399 and the liability of this respondent is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner and not 5 SCCH-18 MVC 5056/2023 on the part of the rider of the scooter bearing No.KA- 03-KD-1399. It is contended that, the rider of offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to ride the said vehicle on the date of accident, hence there is a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. After investigation the police have filed charge sheet u/s 3(1) R/W Section 181 5(1) R/W 180 of IMV Act stating that the rider had no valid and effective driving licence. Further denied the damages caused to the vehicle of the petitioner. Ultimately contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. With all these main grounds, prayed to dismiss the petition with cost.
8. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties, this court has framed the following issues;
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of riding of scooter bearing No.KA-03-KD-1399 and as a result, the KTM Bike bearing registration No.KA-01-JN- 1175 sustained damages?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much 6 SCCH-18 MVC 5056/2023 and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
9. In order to substantiate his case, the petitioner got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P13.
10. On the other hand, respondent No.2 examined its Legal Manager as RW1 and got marked the document at Ex.R1. The respondent No.1 examined himself as RW2.
11. Heard the arguments of both the counsel and perused the materials available on record.
12. On appreciation of the evidence available on record, my findings to the aforesaid issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative
Issue No.2: Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.3: As per final order
for the following:
7 SCCH-18 MVC 5056/2023
R E A S O N S
ISSUE No.1:-
13. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, due to the actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the scooter bearing registration No.KA-03- KD-1399, the alleged accident had taken place, consequently petitioner's vehicle KTM Bike bearing registration No.KA-01-JN-1175 caused damages. Since the facts of the case has been narrated in detail above, once again narration of the petition and the defenses of the respondent No.2 forthcoming in the written statement is not required herein.
14. The petitioner in order to prove his case, got examined himself as PW1. In his examination-in- chief by way of affidavit has reiterated the averments made in the petition.
15. To demonstrate the point of ownership placed R.C. extract as per Ex.P10 and D.L. as per Ex.P9. On perusal of R.C. there is a clear mention about the name of the petitioner in connection with his vehicle and in the driving license Ex.P9 also, name of the driver of the bike could be seen. To disprove all these documents, no contra materials forthcoming in the evidence of the respondent.
8 SCCH-18 MVC 5056/202316. Further the petitioner has relied upon Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. Ex.P1-true copy of FIR in Cr.No.67/2023 of Hennur Traffic Police station. Ex.P2-FIS given by the petitioner. Ex.P3 & Ex.P4- Mahazar and sketch shows the place of accident. Thereafter, collected the report of the motor vehicle inspector as per Ex.P5. In the opinion of the motor vehicle inspector, accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicles involved in the accident. Further, in connection with the vehicle of the petitioner, IMV report as per Ex.P5 shows the damages viz., "front mudguard, front right side crash guard, handle work damage". Ex.P6-true copy of the charge sheet in Crime No.67/2023 of Hennur Traffic police station, Ex.P5 & Ex.P8-notice u/s 133 of MV Act and reply to the said notice.
17. On perusal of the police documents, it could be seen that, based upon the first information statement given by the petitioner, the S.H.O. of Hennur Traffic Police has registered the case against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of I.P.C. Upon investigation, the I.O. has filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle alleging 9 SCCH-18 MVC 5056/2023 that he has committed the offence punishable under section 279 and 338 of IPC and Section 218, 3(1), 177, 5(1), 181, 180 of IMV Act.
18. At the time of cross-examination of PW1, denied the suggestion that his vehicle is having OD coverage, hence, he has taken the compensation from his insurance company. Further denied the suggestion that he has repaired his vehicle including the other damages as mentioned in Ex.P5. Apart from this, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of the PW1 to prove the contention of the respondent regarding rash and negligent act of the rider of the offending vehicle. Hence, it is crystal clear from the evidence available on record that, due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the offending vehicle, the vehicle belonged to the petitioner was damaged and the petitioner being the owner of the KTM Motor Bike bearing registration No.KA-01-JN- 1175.
19. In the light of my discussions held above, I am of the view that, the evidence of the PW1 and the documentary evidence placed by the petitioner substantiate the case of the petitioner. Hence, I am of the opinion that, petitioner has proved his case 10 SCCH-18 MVC 5056/2023 that, the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.KA-03-KD-1399. In the said accident, the defending vehicle KTM Bike bearing registration No.KA-01-JN-1175, belonged to the petitioner was damaged. Accordingly, I am answering the Issue No.1 is in the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2 :
20. The petitioner being the owner of the defending KTM Bike bearing registration No.KA-01- JN-1175, asserting that, after the accident vehicle in question belonged to the petitioner was fully damaged. As per Ex.P-IMV Report as per Ex.P5 shows the damages viz., "front mudguard, front right side crash guard, handle work damage". To substantiate his contention he has placed liability letter, tax invoice payment bill and acknowledgement at Ex.P11 to Ex.P13.
21. At the time of cross-examination he has stated that he left his vehicle to Khiviraj Motors, and his vehicle was insured with TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., Further denied the suggestion that he got reimbursed the repairs charges from his 11 SCCH-18 MVC 5056/2023 insurance company. Further denied that there is a difference between the damages mentioned in the IMV report and the damages that have been repaired. Further denied the suggestion that just to get compensation falsely lodged complaint against the rider of the scooter.
22. On perusal of the evidence of the PW1 and documents placed as per Ex.P11 to Ex.P13, the petitioner has not made an effort to examine mechanic of the Khivaraj Motors to prove that the parts of damages mentioned in the IMV report and parts of the repair mentioned in the invoice are one and the same.
23. Further PW1 has stated that, during the period of repair of the vehicle, he was forced to engage private vehicle incurring huge amount to attend his duty. In support of this, the petitioner has not produced any documents.
24. Over all appreciation of the evidence given by the petitioner and the documents placed by him and also recitals of the Ex.P11 to Ex.P13 and by taking into consideration of damages mentioned in 12 SCCH-18 MVC 5056/2023 the Ex.P5 and also inconvenience caused to the petitioner at the time of repair, I am of the view that, it is just and proper to award Rs.35,000/- towards the damages of the vehicle.
24. In the light of my detailed discussions held above, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) along with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of the petition, till the realization of the award amount.
LIABILITY:
25. As regards the liability is concerned, it is the assertion of the petitioner that, due to actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the scooter bearing registration No.KA-03-KD-1399 alleged accident had taken place. The evidence given by the petitioner in connection with the issue No.1, remained unshaken.
26. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company has contended that the rider of the scooter bearing registration No.KA-03-KD-1399 had no valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, the jurisdictional police after thorough 13 SCCH-18 MVC 5056/2023 investigation have filed charge sheet u/s 3(1) R/W 181, 5(1) R/W 180 of IMV Act was not holding driving licence to ride the said vehicle and owner has willfully handed over the vehicle to the rider who was not possessing driving licence. In this regard it has examined its Legal Manager as RW1. He has reiterated the averments made in the written statement. He has placed insurance policy as Ex.R1.
27. Per contra, the respondent No.1 being the owner of the scooter bearing registration No.KA-03- KD-1399 has contended that at the time of accident the rider of the scooter bearing registration No.KA-
03-KD-1399 had learner licence NO.KA53/0019124/2023 issued on 3.4.2023 valid up to 2.10.2023. The pillion rider Lakshmikanth also having valid driving licence at the time of accident. But the I.O. without looking into all these facts filed a false charge sheet against them. He himself examined as RW2. He has reiterated the averments made in the written statement. On perusal of Ex.R8 reply notice discloses that the rider of the offending vehicle had learner's licence at the time of accident.
14 SCCH-18 MVC 5056/202328. With regard to the said fact, during the course of arguments the counsel for the respondent No.1 has relied following decisions reported in;
1) (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 297 in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs.Swaran Singh and others Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that "if a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having learners' licence the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree."
2) 2019 ACJ 278 in case of Shantawwa Vs. Ajitsingh and another Wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that, if a person who is driving motor cycle under the learner's licence can be said to be duly licenced or holding a valid licence.
29. On perusal of the said decisions, it is observed that "if a person who is driving motor cycle under the learner's licence can be said to be the duly licenced or holding valid licence." The said decision is aptly applicable to the facts of this case on hand. Hence, as per this citation the respondent No.2 being 15 SCCH-18 MVC 5056/2023 the insurance company cannot escape from its liability to pay the compensation.
30. As per records, the policy was valid upto 2.3.2025. The alleged accident was taken place on 23.5.2023. As such, I am of the view that, the respondent No.1 being the owner and the respondent No.2 being insurance company of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. In view of the valid insurance policy, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till its realization. Accordingly, I am answering the issue No.2 partly in the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.3:
31. In view of above discussions on issue Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R The claim petition filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with cost.
16 SCCH-18 MVC 5056/2023The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) along with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of the petition till the realization of the award amount.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In view of the valid insurance policy, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization within two months from the date of this order.
After deposit of the compensation amount with interest, since the amount spent towards damages, entire shall be released to the petitioner through due process of law.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.500/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 23rd day of June 2025).
Digitally signed by DHANESH MUGALI DHANESH Date: MUGALI 2025.07.05 13:31:14 +0530 (DHANESH MUGALI) III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER MACT & ACJM, BENGALURU. 17 SCCH-18 MVC 5056/2023 ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
PW1 Shri Adarsh G. List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex.P1 : FIR Ex.P2 : First information statement Ex.P3 : Spot mahazar Ex.P4 : Spot sketch Ex.P5 : IMV report Ex.P6 : Wound certificate Ex.P7 : Charge sheet Ex.P8 : Notice u/s 133 of M.V. Act and its reply Ex.P9 : D.L. Ex.P10 : R.C. Ex.P11 : Tax Invoice Ex.P12 : Amount paid receipt Ex.P13 : Acknowledgment
List of witnesses examined on respondents' side:
RW1 Shri Vinay Prasad G.
RW2 Shri K.V. Vijaya Kumar
18 SCCH-18 MVC 5056/2023
List of documents exhibited on respondents' side:
Ex.R1 : Copy of Insurance policy Digitally signed by DHANESH MUGALI DHANESH Date: MUGALI 2025.07.05 13:31:26 +0530 III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE MEMBER MACT & ACJM, BENGALURU.