Bangalore District Court
Rajegowda vs Govindegowda B.B on 10 November, 2025
KABC020169462023
IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND
ACJM AND ADDL. MACT., BENGALURU, (SCCH-15)
PRESENT: RESHMA JANE RODRIGUES
M.com., LL.M.,
XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge,
ACJM, Court of Small Causes
& Member,MACT-15, Bengaluru.
MVC No.3854/2023
Dated this the 10th day of November 2025
Petitioner/s: Sri. Rajegowda,
S/o Nanjappa,
Aged about 70 years,
R/at B. Cholenahalli, Baralu,
Channarayapatna, Hasan - 573135.
(By Sri. K.N. Channappa, Adv)
Versus
Respondents : 1) Govindegowda B.B
S/o Basavegowda,
R/at Thotada Mane, Bekka at post,
S Belagola Hobli, C.R. Patna Taluk,
Hassan - 573116.
(RC owner of bike bearing
Reg.No.KA-13-EG-4762)
(Exparte)
SCCH 15 2 MVC No.3854/2023
2) Future Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.,
No.31, 3rd floor, Above Croma Show
Room, Shravanee Krishna Mansion,
100 feet road, 2nd Block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru - 560011.
(policy No.VA138157
valid from 05.05.2022 to 04.05.2023)
(By Sri. V. Shrihari Naidu, Adv)
:JUDGMENT:
This claim petition emanates in respect of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner by name Sri Rajegowda in respect of the Road Traffic Accident dated 26.02.2023.
2. Succinctly stated the facts germane to the lis involved in this petition are briefly summarized as follows:
That on 26.02.2023 at about 8.00 to 8.05 p.m., petitioner was standing near Baralu gate road on the extreme left side of the road with care and caution and by observing the vehicles plying on the road, at that time, the respondent's Bike bearing Reg.No.KA-13-EG-4762 (herein after referred to as the offending vehicle) came from Channarayapatna side in a rash SCCH 15 3 MVC No.3854/2023 and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the petitioner, resulting in the accident. Due to the said impact, petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body.
3. Immediately, after the accident petitioner was shifted to Channarayapatna Government hospital, after first aid treatment he was shifted to Victoria hospital and then he was shifted to Unity Lifeline Hospital, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient. Hence, the petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with cost and interest at the rate of 12% p.a in the interest of justice and equity.
4. In pursuance of service of notice issued to the Respondents, Respondent No.1 remained absent and he was placed exparte.
The Respondent No.2 has filed written statement submitting as follows:
The respondent No.2 admitted that it has issued insurance policy to the offending Bike bearing Reg.No.KA-13-
SCCH 15 4 MVC No.3854/2023 EG-4762 in favour of the respondent No.1. Without prejudice the liability of the respondent No.2 if any is subject to the validity of driving license and terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The rider of the said vehicle did not have valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident. It is submitted that the amount claimed by the petitioner is highly exorbitant, excessive, arbitrary, unreasonable and without any legal basis. Hence, on these grounds Respondent No.2 has prayed to dismiss the petition against it.
5. Vide order dated 03.10.2024 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 26.02.2023 at about 8.00 to 8.05 p.m., near Baralu gate, Shravanabelgola Hobli, C.R. Patna Taluk, Hassan, due to rash and SCCH 15 5 MVC No.3854/2023 negligent riding of the rider of the Bike bearing Reg.No.KA-13-EG-4762?
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 20 documents. The Respondent No.2 got examined one witness as RW.1 and relied upon Ex.R1 to 7 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 :
SCCH 15 6 MVC No.3854/2023
REASONS
8. Issue No.1: Before adjudication of the issue with respect to the compensation it is quintessential to adjudicate on the issue of negligence. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the Bike bearing Reg.No.KA-13-EG-4762 / offending vehicle.
9. In this regard the petitioner got examined himself as PW.1 and in his chief-examination he has deposed that on 26.02.2023 at about 8.00 to 8.05 p.m. he was standing near Baralu gate road on extreme left side of the road and at that time the rider of the offending vehicle came from Channapatna in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the petitioner, as a result, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
10. The petitioner in support of his claim has in addition to describing the course of the accident in line with the facts mentioned in the complaint has relied upon Ex.P1 to 6 SCCH 15 7 MVC No.3854/2023 documents. Ex.P1 is the FIR which is registered against the rider of the offending vehicle for the offenses under Sec.279 and 337 of IPC on the basis of the complaint given by one Suresh on 01.03.2023 as per the Ex.P2. As far as the delay in filing the complaint it is submitted by the petitioner that he was under the impression that he has not sustained any injury and later had pain in his head and later realized that he has blood clot in his head due to the impact of the accident. Hence the delay in lodging the complaint is satisfactorily explained. Ex.P3 is the spot mahazar which discloses the spot of the accident. On perusal of Ex.P3 it discloses that the accident has taken place at the extreme left edge of the road and the road is about 24 feet wide and tar road with 5 feet footpath on either side of the road. The fact that the accident has taken place at the left edge of the road goes to show that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the offending vehicle. In addition Ex.P4 is the IMV report which discloses the damages sustained to the SCCH 15 8 MVC No.3854/2023 offending vehicle. Ex.P5 wound certificate discloses that the petitioner has sustained injuries due to the impact of the accident. Ex.P6 charge sheet has been filed against the rider of the offending vehicle for the offenses under Sec.279, 337 and 338 of IPC and also under Sec.181(3) of IMV Act for not possessing driving license. The charge sheet documents discloses that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending vehicle.
11. As far as the manner of the accident is concerned PW.1 is cross-examined by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. PW.1 in his cross-examination has deposed that the accident took place on the edge of the road and admitted that the motorist is from his village. He has denied that the accident took place since he was trying to cross the main road in order to go to the shop. It is suggested in the cross- examination of PW.1 that it is the case of self fall while walking near his house or walking near his workplace and in not a case of accident and a false complaint is lodged after SCCH 15 9 MVC No.3854/2023 substantial delay in order to make wrongful gain. Except the suggestion that the accident has taken place due to the negligence on the petitioner's side and it is a case of self fall 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.2. There is no material on record which suggests falsity or untruth in the oral testimony 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 due to his negligence. The fact that the rider of the offending vehicle has already been charge sheeted for the offenses under Sec.279, 337 and 338 of IPC and under Sec.181(3) 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 SCCH 15 10 MVC No.3854/2023 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. The computation of compensation will have to be decided separately under various heads.
13. MEDICAL OR TREATMENT EXPENSES: The petitioner has produced Ex.P5 - wound certificate of government hospital, Channarayapatna dated 28.02.2023. It discloses that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries due to the accident and there was swelling present over right side forehead and partial area of scalp. In addition the SCCH 15 11 MVC No.3854/2023 petitioner has produced Ex.P11 - discharge summary of Unity Lifeline hospital. Ex.P12 are the medical bills produced by the petitioner and Ex.P15 is the Lab report. As far as the medical bills are concerned, PW.1 is cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and in the cross-examination of PW.1 he has deposed that he went to the hospital on 28.03.2023 and denied that since he was hale and healthy he was discharged from NIMHANS. PW.1 has denied that there is no nexus between the injuries and the accident and admitted that he has not undergone surgery and admitted that he had urinary bladder ailment and was admitted from 13.03.2023 to 20.03.2023. It is suggested in the cross-examination of PW.1 that the medical bills produced are pertaining to urinary bladder ailment and not for treatment with respect to the injury sustained in the accident. In this regard on perusal of Ex.P11 discloses that the petitioner has taken treatment for urinary bladder ailment. However, all the bills produced by the petitioner are not pertaining to urinary bladder ailment and SCCH 15 12 MVC No.3854/2023 there is no clear evidence to identify the bills and to differentiate the bills for treatment taken towards urinary bladder ailment. Hence, taking into consideration Ex.p12 an amount of Rs.43,779/- is awarded towards medical bills.
14. PAIN AND SUFFERING: As per the medical documents the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries and Ex.P5 discloses that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and physical impairment has caused unbearable pain and he cannot do any work as prior to the accident. It is not possible to ascertain the quantum of compensation admissible to petitioner for the trauma, 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.50,000/- is awarded to him towards pain and sufferings. Thus, he is awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- under this head.
SCCH 15 13 MVC No.3854/2023
15. LOSS OF ACTUAL EARNINGS: In his evidence PW.1 has submitted that he was aged about 70 years and he was a farmer and was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. In this regard he has not produced any documents to prove his avocation and income. 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 guidelines of Lok- Adalat chart. As per the relevant period the notional income is taken as Rs.16,000/- p.m. 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.16,000 X 3 = 48,000/- under this head.
16. LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS DUE TO DISABILITY:
The Petitioner has not adduced any evidence to show he has sustained permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Hence in the absence of any SCCH 15 14 MVC No.3854/2023 evidence it has to be concluded that the petitioner has not sustained any permanent disability to the injuries sustained in the accident.
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 might have to taken the help of an attendant. Further, he would be requiring conveyance for movement. The petitioner has also produced Ex.P13 - Ambulance bills. 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 15 MVC No.3854/2023
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 ₹ 50,000/-
2. Loss of amenities ₹ 20,000/-
3. Loss of income during the laid ₹ 48,000/-
up period
4. Attendant's charges, Extra diet, ₹ 20,000/-
and conveyance
5. Medical expenses ₹ 43,779/-
6. Loss of Future Income ----
Total ₹1,81,779/-
Thus, totally the Petitioner is awarded compensation of ₹1,81,779/- 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 16 MVC No.3854/2023 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: This Court has arrived at the conclusion that the accident has occurred by the negligent riding of the rider of the offending Bike bearing Reg.No.KA-13- EG-4762.
22. As far as the liability is concerned the respondent No.2 has got examined Legal Manager of the respondent No.2 company as RW.1 and in her chief-examination she has deposed that though they have issued a policy of insurance and same was valid as on the date of the accident however, the owner of the vehicle has entrusted the offending vehicle to a person who did not have a valid DL and hence charge sheet has been filed against the rider of the offending vehicle for the SCCH 15 17 MVC No.3854/2023 offenses under Sec.181(3) of MV Act. Due to absence of valid DL, there is breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and hence it is submitted that the respondent insurance company is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.1. In support of the same Ex.R3 is produced which is the letter addressed to the owner of the vehicle to produce the DL and similar notice is also issued as per Ex.R6 by the Investigation Officer under Sec.133 of MV Act. In Ex.R7 Reply to the notice under Sec.133 MV Act, the owner of the vehicle has stated that he had given the vehicle to one Ravi S/o Rangegowda and DL has been produced to prove that the rider of the offending vehicle had valid DL as on the date of the accident, hence, there is breach of the policy conditions. RW1 is cross- examined by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein it is suggested that the RTO is the proper authority to state regarding the existence of the DL. However, the charge sheet can be relied to prove that the rider of the offending vehicle did not have DL as on the date of the accident. Once evidence is SCCH 15 18 MVC No.3854/2023 adduced that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid DL the burden shifts on the petitioner to prove existence of DL since the existence of a particular fact will have to be proved by a person who would fail if no evidence is adduced on either side. In addition respondent has remained absent and has not chosen to appear to prove existence of driving license. On this aspect adverting to the dictum of law laid down in SLP (Civil) No.11757/2005, between Mahaveer Vs The Branch Manager, United India Ins. Co. Ltd., & others relied upon by the counsel for respondent No2 even in this case despite the owner of the vehicle having been a party before this tribunal no evidence was given and the owner did not mount the box nor was any license produced either of the person who was driving the vehicle or to whom it was entrusted. Hence the owner has failed to prove that the vehicle was entrusted to a person having valid license. Hence, there is satisfactory material to hold that there is a breach of the policy conditions SCCH 15 19 MVC No.3854/2023 and hence the Respondent No.1 being owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation.
Coming to the question on whom the liability to pay compensation arises on this aspect the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied on the decisions in :
1. MFA No.3297/2019 (MV-D), between Adilakshmamma & others Vs. Raju B & another
2. MFA No.6154/2019 (MV-D), between Hemalatha @ Hema @ Hemavathi & others Vs. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., & another
3. MFA No.4716/2011 (MV-D), between United India Ins.
Co. Ltd., Vs. Umamaheshwari @ Umadevi & others Per contra the learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the decisions in :
1. MFA No.202104/2024 (MV-D), between The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard Nibhaye Vadde Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Pooja & others.
SCCH 15 20 MVC No.3854/2023
2. First Appeal From Order No.1780/2024, between ICICI Lombard Nibhaye Vadde Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Arti Devi & others
23. On careful glance of the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner and respondent No2 admittedly the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is deals with pay and recovery and the decisions relied upon by the counsel for respondent No 2 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 referred to supra 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.
SCCH 15 21 MVC No.3854/2023
24. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Allahabad High court where in a detailed discussion is made on the principle of pay and recover. The said decision has also taken into consideration catena of decisions and it is concluded that 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.
25. 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 SCCH 15 22 MVC No.3854/2023 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 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 2 who in turn will have to recover the same from the insured. Hence Respondent No.2 will have to deposit the compensation amount and thereafter recover the same from Respondent No.1. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 "Partly in the Affirmative".
26. 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.
SCCH 15 23 MVC No.3854/2023
The Petitioner is entitled for
Compensation of ₹1,81,779/- 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.1 is liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioner.
However, the Respondent No.2 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.1 through due process of law.
Since, the amount awarded to the Petitioner is meager, the entire amount awarded to Petitioner shall be released to him by way of E- payment and after his proper identification.
The Advocate fee is fixed at ₹1,000/-.
Draw Award accordingly.
SCCH 15 24 MVC No.3854/2023 (Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of November, 2025) (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 : Sri. Rajegowda P.W.2 : Sri. Prajwal S.G
Documents marked as Exhibits for the Petitioner :
Ex.P.1 FIR Ex.P.2 Complaint Ex.P.3 Spot mahazar Ex.P.4 IMV report Ex.P.5 Wound certificate Ex.P.6 Charge sheet Ex.P.7 to 10 Statements Ex.P.11 Discharge summary Ex.P.12 Medical bills Ex.P.13 Ambulance bills Ex.P.14 Prescriptions Ex.P.15 Lab reports Ex.P.16 CT scan films SCCH 15 25 MVC No.3854/2023 Ex.P.17 Aadhaar card Ex.P.18 Authorization letter Ex.P.19 Police intimation Ex.P.20 MLC register extract
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Respondent :
RW.1 : Geethanjali S Documents marked as Exhibits for the Respondents:
Ex.R1 Authorization letter
Ex.R2 Copy of insurance policy
Ex.R3 Letter sent to insurer
Ex.R4 Postal receipt
Ex.R5 Charge sheet
Ex.R6 Copy of 133 notice
Ex.R7 Copy of reply to notice
(RESHMA JANE RODRIGUES)
XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge,
ACJM,Court of Small Causes &
Member, MACT-15, Bengaluru.