Bangalore District Court
Sangeetha Nandagopalan vs Rakesh Chandra on 24 January, 2026
SCCH-26 M.V.C.No.1676/2023
KABC020076232023
BEFORE THE COURT OF XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL & A.C.J.M. (SCCH-26) AT BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JANUARY 2026
PRESENT: SRI. APPASAB NAIK,
B.A.L.L.B.(Spl)
XXIV ADDL. SCJ & ACJM &
MEMBER-MACT BENGALURU.
M.V.C No.1676/2023
PETITIONER : Sangeetha Nandagopalan,
D/o Nandagopalan V.,
Aged about 39 years,
R/a Flat No.5A-319,
Vaishnavi Serene,
IVRI Road, Yelahanka,
Bangalore-64.
Previously residing at:
No.02, Ganesha Nilaya,
1st Cross, I Phase,
WOC Road, Manjunatha Nagar,
Bangalore-10.
(By Sri. B.S. Manjunath- Advocate)
V/s.
RESPONDENTS 1. Rakesh Chandra,
R/a No.30,
Maragondanahalli Main Road,
R.R. Layout,
Bangalore-36,
SCCH - 26 2 M.V.C.No.1676/2023
(Previous R.C. Owner of Car
Reg.No.KA-51-MD-5314)
(Ex-parte)
2. Rambabu Duvvuru,
S/o Bujjaiah D.,
R/a No. C004,
Daaliya Daddys Garden,
Electronic City Post,
Bangalore-100.
(Present R.C. owner of Car
Reg.No.KA-51-MD-5314)
(Ex-parte)
3. HDFC ERGO General,
Insurance Company Limited,
No.25/1, II Floor,
Building No.2,
Shankaranarayana Building,
M.G. Road,
Bangalore-01.
(I.P.No.2319 1011 6200 000 Valid
From 26.03.2022 to 25.03.2023)
(By Sri. Y.P. Venkatapathi -
Advocate)
:: JUDGMENT::
The petition is filed by the petitioner under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 seeking to award compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the road traffic accident.
SCCH - 26 3 M.V.C.No.1676/2023
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case are as under:
On 28.02.2023 at about 2.15 p.m., the petitioner was riding two wheeler bearing Reg.No.KA-02-KL-6361 from Adugodi to Yelahanka on B.B. Road, while she was proceeding in front of HQTC Gate, near Mekhri Circle by slowly and cautiously, at that time the driver of Car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MD-5314 came from behind at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human life, without observing the traffic rules and dashed against the petitioner's two wheeler. Due to which, the petitioner fell down and sustained comminuted fracture shaft of left tibia, fracture neck of left fibula.
3. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Prolife Hospital, wherein X-rays and necessary investigation were done, fractures were confirmed and advised to undergo surgery and she was discharged on 01.03.2023. The petitioner was again admitted to M.S. Ramaiah Memorial Hospital, wherein she has undergone surgery of internal fixation to left leg fracture and she was SCCH - 26 4 M.V.C.No.1676/2023 discharged on 07.03.2023 with an advise to take regular follow up and bed rest. The petitioner had incurred huge amount towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and attendants charges.
4. Prior to the accident petitioner was aged about 39 years, she was hale and healthy, she was working as a "Software Expert" at Bosch Global Software Pvt. Ltd., Adugodi, Bangalore and she was drawing salary of Rs.2,00,000/- per month. Due to injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner has undergone deep mental shock, pain and sufferings, hardship and she is getting unbearable pain in her left leg. She cannot walk without support, stand, squat on floor, sit in a cross legged, climb stairs, she cannot lift weight. The petitioner is unable to do her duty, she cannot ride two wheeler, she is depending on others for her routine activities and she has sustained permanent disability.
5. The accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Car and in this regard SCCH - 26 5 M.V.C.No.1676/2023 Sadashivanagar Traffic Police have registered the case in Cr.No.18/2023 against the driver of offending car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MD-5314 punishable under Sec.279 and 338 of IPC. The 1st respondent is the previous R.C. owner and the 2nd respondent is the present R.C. owner of offending vehicle and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of said car.
Hence, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, the petitioner has prayed to award compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- together with cost and interest.
6. After service of summons, respondent No.1 and 2 remained absent and they have been placed Ex-parte. Respondent No.3 appeared through its counsels and filed objection statement.
7. Respondent No.3 in its objection statement contending that, the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The 2nd respondent has admitted that, this respondent has issued the policy in favour of 1st respondent with respect to car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MD-5314, which SCCH - 26 6 M.V.C.No.1676/2023 covers the period of alleged accident, however if the liability any of this respondent is limited to the terms and conditions of the policy and as per provisions of M.V. Act. It is stated that, as per sketch and IMV reports it is clear that, the petitioner has not taken care while changing over to other side of the road from where she entered and by ignoring the car she has dashed to back side of the car. Hence, it is self accident and the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation. Further contended that, there is five days delay in lodging the complaint and it is clear that, after thought the FIR was lodged. The petitioner has reimbursed her entire medical expenses from her employer, hence she is not entitled to seek the same from the respondents. It is contended that, there is a contributory negligence on the part of the driver of car and also the petitioner, hence the compensation has to be reduced to the extent of negligence on the part of petitioner. This respondent has denied the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing Reg.No.KA-51- MD-5314 by its driver, injuries sustained by the petitioner due to accident, treatment taken by her and amount spent SCCH - 26 7 M.V.C.No.1676/2023 towards medical and other charges. Further denied the disability sustained by the petitioner, occupation and income of the petitioner. Further contended that, the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and imaginary. For all these reasons, it has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
8. On the basis of the above pleadings, following issues have been framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 28.02.2023 at about 2.15 pm., when she was riding two wheeler bearing Reg.No.KA-02-HL-6361 from Adugodi to Yelahanka, on B.b.
road, near HQTC gate, Near Mekhri circle, Bangalore, at that time, a driver of Car bearing Reg.No.KA-51- MD-5314 came from behind at high speed and dashed against the petitioner, due to the impact she was fell down sustained grievous injuries mentioned in the petition?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed in the petition? If so, from which respondent?
3. What Order or Award?
SCCH - 26 8 M.V.C.No.1676/2023
9. In order to prove her case, the petitioner herself examined as PW.1 and got marked documents as per Ex.P.1 to 21, Ex.P.35 to Ex.P.44. She has also examined three witnesses as P.W.2 to P.W.4 and got marked documents at Ex.P.22 to Ex.P.34. The respondent No.3 has not adduced the rebuttal evidence, hence the evidence of respondent No.3 is taken as nil.
10. Heard the arguments on both sides. Perused the entire records.
11. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : Partly in the affirmative Issue No.3 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
12. ISSUE No.1: It is the case of the petitioner that, on 28.02.2023 at about 2.15 p.m., while she was proceeding by riding the two wheeler in front of HQTC Gate, near Mekhri Circle by slowly and cautiously, the driver of Car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MD-5314 came from behind at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her two SCCH - 26 9 M.V.C.No.1676/2023 wheeler. Due to which, she fell down and sustained comminuted fracture shaft of left tibia, fracture neck of left fibula. In order to prove the actionable negligence on the part of driver of Car bearing Car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MD- 5314, petitioner has got examined herself as PW.1. She has filed affidavit by way of examination in chief and reiterated the averments made in the petition. In order to prove issue No.1, she has produced documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. Out of which, Ex.P.1 is the FIR, Ex.P.2 is the complaint, Ex.P.3 is the hand sketch map, Ex.P.4 is the spot panchanama, Ex.P.5 is the MVA report, Ex.P.6 is the wound certificate, Ex.P.7 is the final report, Ex.P.8 is the order sheet in C.C.No.1463/2023 and Ex.P.9 is the copy of plea. The oral and documentary evidence produced by the petitioner proves that, there was an accident in which she has sustained injuries.
13. With regard to negligence, respondent No.3 has specifically contended that, as per sketch and IMV reports it is clear that, the petitioner has not taken care while changing over to the other side of the road from where she SCCH - 26 10 M.V.C.No.1676/2023 entered and by ignoring the car she has dashed to back side. Hence, it is self accident. Further contended that, there is five days delay in lodging the complaint and only after thought the FIR was lodged. In order to substantiate the said contention, respondent No.3 has not produced any oral or documentary evidence. Moreover, the charge sheet has not been challenged by the respondent No.3.
14. On perusal of Ex.P.2, complaint it reveals that the petitioner herself lodged the complaint before the police while she was taking treatment in the hospital and on the basis of the said complaint, Sadashivanagar Police have registered the FIR as per Ex.P.1 against the driver of Car bearing Reg.No.KA-53-MD-5314. In Ex.P.1 it is clearly mentioned that, there is delay in lodging the complaint due to medical treatment. As per Ex.P.3 the police have drawn the sketch at the spot of accident. As per Ex.P.4, the police have conducted panchanama. Ex.P.5 reveals that, the said accident was not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicles. Ex.P.6 shows that, the petitioner has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident. The I.O has filed charge SCCH - 26 11 M.V.C.No.1676/2023 sheet as per Ex.P.7 against the driver of Car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MD-5314 after completion of investigation based on the evidence available at the spot. As per Ex.P.8, it clearly reveals that, the driver of the offending car pleaded guilty of negligence and paid fine.
15. At this juncture it is worth to refer the decision reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530 between Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that, "it is necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants are merely required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied".
Again it is worth to rely on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2003 Karnataka page 493, between Mallamma Vs. Balaji and Others, wherein the SCCH - 26 12 M.V.C.No.1676/2023 Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held at para 12 as hereunder:
" Filing of the charge sheet against the driver is also a prima-facie case to hold that, the driver of the said lorry was responsible for the accident and burden shifts on him to proves the same".
16. All the records indicate the negligence on the part of driver of Car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MD-5314. Respondent No.3 has failed to prove the allegations of the petitioner with regard to the injury sustained by her in the alleged accident due to rash and negligent driving of offending Car. By the above materials and evidence it is clear that the Petitioner has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing Reg.No.KA- 51-MD-5314 by its driver. Hence, Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
17. ISSUE No.2: As already held herein above, the petitioner proved that she has sustained injuries in RTA which is caused by the vehicle belonging to respondent No.1 SCCH - 26 13 M.V.C.No.1676/2023 and insured with respondent No.2. Hence the petitioner is entitling for compensation. This Court has already held Is- sue No.1 in the affirmative, which makes it more than obvi- ous that the petitioner is entitled for compensation. Need- less to state the quantum of compensation which is awarded has to be proportionate to the nature of the injuries and the compensation has to be awarded by keep- ing in mind the pecuniary damages and non-pecuniary damages suffered by the injured-claimant. By pecuniary damages this Court is referring to the actual loss sustained by the petitioner, which can be determined in terms of money, by taking into account the oral or documentary evi- dence. Whereas for non-pecuniary damages this Court is re- ferring to the losses that the claimant has though suffered, but will not be able to prove for the reason that it can nei- ther be calculated in terms of the money nor can it be proved leading documentary evidence. Perhaps the non- pe- cuniary damages can be figured out by looking into the facts of each case by taking into account the nature of injuries and the aftermath. It is required to be reminded to oneself SCCH - 26 14 M.V.C.No.1676/2023 that compensation in a case arising out of injury can never be granted on mathematical precision and invariably a good amount of guesswork is involved while determining the com- pensation in such cases.
18. Perhaps unlike in a fatal case, in a case involving bodily injury the victim is left to suffer throughout her life and hence it becomes the bounden duty of the tribunal to award compensation to a victim of permanent disability so as to bring in sustainability and also to ensure that victim is not pushed to poverty.
19. This issue revolves round the sphere and ambit as to the quantum of compensation. As per the medical records the petitioner has sustained the injury. As per Ex.P.16, Wound Certificate, the petitioner had sustained left proximal tibia fracture with extension to the shaft. It is needless to say that the said injury is grievous in nature. The discharge summary certificates issued by M.S. Ramaihah Hospital as per Ex.P 16 to 17 and Ex.P-35, indi- cate that the petitioner was treated as an inpatient in the SCCH - 26 15 M.V.C.No.1676/2023 said hospitals from 01.03.2023 to 07.03.2023 for the period of 7 days. As per Ex.P.17, the petitioner has taken treatment from 27.07.2023 to 28.07.2023 for the period of 2 days for the removal of external fixator. Further, as per Ex.P.35 the petitioner has taken treatment from 09.07.2024 to 12.07.2024 for the period of 4 days for the left knee arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with peroneus longus graft Therefore she is entitled for compensation under the following heads :
20. LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME DUE TO DISABILITY :
It is the specific case of the petitioner that owing to the accidental injuries she has become disabled and lost her earning capacity. Therefore she got examined the witness namely Sri. Raghavendra T.G., Medical Record Keeper, Prolife Hospital, Byatarayanapura, Bangalore as P.W.2. P.W.2 has deposed that, the petitioner has taken treatment at Prolife hospital for the injuries sustained in the accident and he has produced 4 documents, which are marked as Ex.P.22 to Ex.P.25. Ex.P.22 is the authorization letter, Ex.P.23 is the true copy of MLC register extract, Ex.P.24 is SCCH - 26 16 M.V.C.No.1676/2023 the police intimation report and these documents shows that, the petitioner has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident and Ex.P.25 is the patient record and it shows that, the petitioner has sustained left proximal tibial fracture and she has taken treatment as an inpatient from 28.02.2023 to 01.03.2023.
21. Further, petitioner has examined another witness namely Sri. Shankar K.C., Medical Record Technician at M.S. Ramaiah Hospital, Bangalore as P.W.3. P.W.3 has deposed that, the petitioner has taken treatment in their hospital for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. He has produced 6 documents, which are marked as Ex.P.26 to Ex.P.31. Ex.P.26 is the authorization letter, Ex.P.27 is the true copy of MLC intimation extract, Ex.P.28 is the true copy of MLC register extract, Ex.P.29 is the case sheet, Ex.P.30 is the 3 X-rays and Ex.P.31 is the CT scan. On perusal of these documents, it is evident that, the petitioner has sustained left proximal tibia fracture with extension to the shaft and he has taken treatment as an inpatient from 01.03.2023 to 07.03.2023.
SCCH - 26 17 M.V.C.No.1676/2023
22. Petitioner has examined Dr. Avinash Parthasarathy, Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon at Sreenivasa Hospital, Bengaluru as P.W.4. P.W.4 has filed affidavit evidence in lieu of examination in chief and he has deposed that, on 19.04.2025, he examined the petitioner for the assessment of disability. He has deposed that, on examination he found antalgic gait in left lower limb, tenderness over left knee, upper 1/3rd left leg, Arc of movement of left knee restricted by 35 degree, difficulty in climbing stairs, squatting, sitting cross-legged and kneeling and X-ray shows mal-united left proximal tibia fracture with shaft extension. Further P.W.4 has deposed that, the petitioner has sustained permanent physical impairment of 50% and whole body disability at 17% due to permanent physical impairment in left lower limb. In support of his evidence, P.W.4 has produced 3 documents, which are marked as Ex.P.32 to Ex.P.34. Ex.P.32 is the clinical notes, Ex.P.33 is the disability proforma and calculation and Ex.P.34 is the X-ray. P.W.4 has been cross examined from the side of respondent No.3 at length. During the course of cross-
SCCH - 26 18 M.V.C.No.1676/2023 examination, P.W.4 has deposed that, he has not treated the petitioner. Further stated that, the fractures sustained by the petitioner are mal-united. Further he denied all the suggestions made by the respondent No.3 counsel.
23. It is a well settled law that MACT has to assess the avocational disability based on the medical evidence. The law is well settled that it is the impact of the physical dis- ability on the particular avocation of the petitioner which is relevant for the purpose of assessment of compensation un- der the head of loss of future income as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2011) 1 SCC 343 in the case of Rajkumar V/s. Ajaykumar and another, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows;
Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;
SCCH - 26 19 M.V.C.No.1676/2023
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement,
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.
24. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disabil- ity on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what SCCH - 26 20 M.V.C.No.1676/2023 he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the acci- dent, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disabil- ity, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.
25. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is am- putated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may vir- tually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result SCCH - 26 21 M.V.C.No.1676/2023 in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in govern- ment service, though he may be awarded compensation un- der the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier hold- ing, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity.
26. Now let me apply the above said principles to the factual matrix. Now this Tribunal has to assess whether the aforesaid disability impairs the avocation of the petitioner.
SCCH - 26 22 M.V.C.No.1676/2023 As per the averments made in her evidence affidavit, she was working as a Software Expert at Bosch Global Software Pvt. Ltd., Adugodi, Bangalore and she was drawing salary of Rs.2,00,000/- per month. In order to prove her contention, the petitioner has produced Ex.P.14, the appointment letter and Ex.P.15, the identity card. Ex.P.14 reveals that, the petitioner was appointed as "Project Manager" by the Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Limited on 23.12.2013. Ex.P.42 to Ex.P.44 are the pay slips and it reveals that, petitioner was drawing gross salary of Rs.2,64,768.51/- at the time of accident and out of her salary, Rs.62,395/- was deducted towards income tax and Rs.200/- was deducted towards professional tax. Hence, after deducting the said amount, the petitioner was drawing salary of Rs.2,02,173/- per month at the time of accident.
27. It is the specific defence of the respondent No.3 that the petitioner had continued her service in Bosch Global Software Pvt. Ltd., Adugodi, Bangalore, when such being a case there is no question of loss of future income. In order to substantiate the above said fact the respondent SCCH - 26 23 M.V.C.No.1676/2023 No.3 counsel had relied on the categorical admission of PW1 during the course of cross- examination which reads as hereunder :
"ನಾನು ಈಗ Bosch ಕಂಪನಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನನಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿ ತಿಂಗಳು 2 ಲಕ್ಷ ಸಂಬಳ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅಪಘಾತವಾದ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನನಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿ ತಿಂಗಳಿಗೆ ರೂ.1,95,000/- ವೇತನ ಬರುತ್ತಿತ್ತು . ನನಗೆ ಈಗ ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಸಂಬಳ ಹೆಚ್ಚಾ ಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ."
28. This categorical admission made by the PW.1 de- mystifies all the mist created by the petitioner. This categor- ical admission goes to show that she has continued her ser- vice in the said company. These evidence reveals that there is a continuity of service and there was no reduction of salary whatsoever. From this it is crystal clear that the peti- tioner had continued her service as a software expert at Bosch Global Software Pvt. Ltd., Adugodi, Bangalore. In view of the decision reported in ILR 2010 KAR 2439 in the case of Subhash V/s New India Assurance Co.Ltd. , 'If the claimant has continued in service, then the question of awarding compensation towards loss of future income does not arise.' That is to say as the actual financial loss arising SCCH - 26 24 M.V.C.No.1676/2023 out of physical disability is not made out by the claimant, he is not entitled for compensation towards 'loss of future income'.
29. From the discussion made supra, there is nothing on record to believe that the petitioner has either been ter- minated from her job due to the accidental injuries or she has tendered her resignation. Therefore this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the claimant does not have any func- tional disability. Under these circumstances the question of calculating the loss of future income due to permanent dis- ability does not arise. No compensation is awarded under the head of 'Loss of future income due to permanent disabil- ity'. However it should be remembered that as per the evi- dence of doctor, the petitioner has suffered physical disabil- ity to the extent of 17% to the whole body. Therefore relying upon the decision reported in ILR 2015 KAR 167 (Dr.Yesh- want Dongre V/s Salman Rasheed & others), this Tri- bunal deem it just & proper to award a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the disability suffered by the peti- tioner.
SCCH - 26 25 M.V.C.No.1676/2023
30. LOSS OF INCOME DURING LAID-UP PERIOD:-
According to petitioner, due to injuries sustained in the accident and due to prolonged treatment, she has not attended the duty for a period of 45 days and she lost leaves for the said period. In order to prove her contention, petitioner has produced Ex.P.40 and Ex.P.41 i.e., leaves statements. On perusal of these documents it reveals that, the petitioner has taken two months leave during the treatment period and she lost 45 days earned leave during this period. During this period her salary was credited to him by adjusting his leaves (Casual/ Earned Leave) for the said period. On conspectus perusal of the said document, it reflects that the said document does not whispers about the nature of leave. The said document simple reveals casual/earned leave. In a company one will get a casual leave of 15 days per month. If that was deducted the earned leave of 45 days was deducted by the leave account of the petitioner. She was forced to take the Earned Leave (45 days) on account of her accidental injuries which otherwise SCCH - 26 26 M.V.C.No.1676/2023 she would have encashed. Thus by taking into account the income of the petitioner.
31. The petitioner has stated that, she was working as a Software Expert at Bosch Global Software Pvt. Ltd., Adugodi, Bangalore and she was drawing salary of Rs.2,00,000/- per month. In order to prove her contention, the petitioner has produced Ex.P.14, the appointment letter and Ex.P.15, the identity card. Ex.P.14 reveals that, the petitioner was appointed as "Project Manager" by the Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Limited on 23.12.2013. Ex.P.42 to Ex.P.44 are the pay slips and it reveals that, petitioner was drawing gross salary of Rs.2,64,768.51/- at the time of accident and out of her salary, Rs.62,395/- was deducted towards income tax and Rs.200/- was deducted towards professional tax. Hence, after deducting the said amount, the petitioner was drawing salary of Rs.2,02,173/- per month at the time of accident. This Tribunal awards Rs.2,02,173/- (Rs.2,02,173 / 30 = 6739.1 X 45 = 3,03,259.50/-) which is rounded off to Rs.3,03,260/- under this head.
SCCH - 26 27 M.V.C.No.1676/2023
32. PAIN AND SUFFERINGS: So far as the compensation under non-pecuniary damages are concerned, considering the fact that the petitioner has suffered fracture and grievous injuries and she has undergone surgery for the insertion of implants. In total she has taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of 14 days which caused her to immeasurable mental agony and pain. Hence, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- would be just and proper compensation under the head pain and sufferings.
33. LOSS OF AMENITIES:- Further on perusal of evidence of PW.1, it reveals that, petitioner has sustained injury and the same is mentioned in above paras. The petitioner was aged about 39 years at the time of accident. Considering the above facts and on perusal of evidence of PW.1 and PW.4, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the head of loss of amenities.
34. ATTENDANT, FOOD AND NOURISHMENT AND CONVEYANCE CHARGES: According to petitioner, she has SCCH - 26 28 M.V.C.No.1676/2023 incurred Rs.60,000/- towards conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges. In this regard, petitioner has not produced any documents. As per Ex.P.16, 17, 25 and 35, in total the petitioner took treatment as an inpatient for 14 days. Therefore, it is just and reasonable to award compensation of Rs.21,000/- under the head of conveyance, food, nourishment and attendant charges.
35. MEDICAL EXPENSES:- In her affidavit evidence petitioner has stated that, out of the first bill amount of Rs.2,39,597/-, a sum of Rs.2,11,079/- and out of the second bill amount of Rs.66,732/- a sum of Rs.58,728/- of M.S. Ramaiah Hospital was paid by Medi Assist Insurance Company under health insurance coverage. Further deposed that, apart from the above amount, she has incurred Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. In support of her evidence, she has produced 41 medical bills at Ex.P.18 for Rs.1,06,979/-, Advance bill receipt at Ex.P.19 for Rs.14,000/- and another set of 30 medical bills at Ex.P.37, for Rs.47,015/-. The advance paid bills produced at Ex.P.19 has been included in Ex.P.18. Hence the said SCCH - 26 29 M.V.C.No.1676/2023 bill is not considered. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for medical expenses of Rs.1,53,994/- towards Medical Expenses.
36. FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES:- On perusal of documents produced by the petitioner, it is clear that, the petitioner has undergone surgery for the removal of implants. Moreover, the evidence of petitioner and P.W.4 does not reveals that, the petitioner needs future medical expenses. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled any compensation under the head of future medical expenses.
37. The calculation table stands as follows:
1. Towards disability suffered Rs.1,50,000/-
by the petitioner
2. Pain and sufferings Rs.1,00,000/-
3. Loss of future amenities & Rs. 50,000/-
happiness
4. Attendant charges, extra Rs. 21,000/-
nutritious food & conveyance charges
5. Medical expenses Rs.1,53,994/-
6. Loss of income during Rs. 3,03,260/-
laid-up period
7. Future Medical Expenses - Nil -
Total Rs.7,78,254/- SCCH - 26 30 M.V.C.No.1676/2023
By considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the above reason, I am of the opinion is that, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.7,78,254/-.
38. Regarding Interest & Liability: Having regard to the nature of the claim and current bank rate of interest, this Tribunal is of the view that if interest at the rate of 6% p.a, is awarded, it would meet the ends of justice.
39. The Respondent No.1 is the previous RC owner of offending Car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MD-5314, respondent No.2 is the present RC owner and respondent No.3 is the insurer of above said car. Hence, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to the compensation to the Petitioner. However, the respondent No.3 being the insurer of above said Car is liable to pay compensation of Rs.7,78,254/- with 6% interest to the petitioner from the date of petition till deposit the amount. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 in the 'Partly affirmative'.
40. ISSUE No.3: in view of my finding on Issue No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
SCCH - 26 31 M.V.C.No.1676/2023
O R D E R
The petition filed by the petitioner
U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.7,78,254/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Four Only) with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. However, the respondent No.3 being insurer of offending Car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MD-
5314 is directed to deposit the compensation amount in this tribunal within two months from the date of this order.
After deposit of compensation amount, release the entire amount to the petitioner through NEFT/RTGS by way of E-payment on proper identification.
SCCH - 26 32 M.V.C.No.1676/2023 Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly over computer, typed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this day 24th day of January, 2026) (APPASAB NAIK) XXIV ADDL. SCJ & ACJM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU.
::A N N E X U R E::
I. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-
P.W.1 : Miss. Sangeetha Nandagopalan.
P.W.2 : Sri. Raghavendra T.G.
P.W.3 : Sri. Shankar K.C.
P.W.4 : Dr. Avinash Parthasarathy.
II. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
THE PETITIONER:-
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of complaint
Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of hand sketch map
Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of spot panchanama
Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of MVA report
Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of wound certificate
Ex.P.7 : Certified copy of final report
SCCH - 26 33 M.V.C.No.1676/2023
Ex.P.8 : Certified copy of order sheet in CC
no.1463/2023 of MMTC-V bengaluru.
Ex.P.9 : Certified copy of plea
Ex.P.10 : Attested copy of Aadhar card of petitioner.
Ex.P.11 : Attested copy of driving license of
petitioner.
Ex.P.12 : Attested copy of Registration certificate of
vehicle bearing No.KA-02-KL-6361 of
petitioner.
Ex.P.13 : Attested copy of convocation certificate of
petitioner.
Ex.P.14 : Attested copy of appointment letter of
petitioner.
Ex.P.15 : Attested copy of identity card of petitioner.
Ex.P.16 : Discharge summery
and 17
Ex.P.18 : Medical bills(Rs.1,06,979/-)
(page No.1 to 41)
Ex.P.19 : Advance bill receipt
Ex.P.20 : Medical proprioceptions (1 to 8)
Ex.P.21 : X-rays( 08 no.s)
Ex.P.22 : Authorization letter pertaining to P.W.2.
Ex.P.23 : True copy of MLC register extract.
Ex.P.24 : True copy of police intimation report.
Ex.P.25 : Patient record (Page No.1-46)
Ex.P. 26 : Authorization letter pertaining to P.W.3. Ex.P. 27 : True copy of MLC intimation extract. Ex.P. 28 : True copy of MLC register extract.
SCCH - 26 34 M.V.C.No.1676/2023
Ex.P. 29 : Case sheet (Page no.01-105)
Ex.P. 30 : X-rays (03 nos)
Ex.P. 31 : CT scan
Ex.P. 32 : Clinical notes
Ex.P. 33 : Disability proforma and calculation
Ex.P. 34 : X-ray
Ex.P.35 : Discharge summary
Ex.P.36 : Certificate issued by Ramaiah Hospital,
Bengaluru
Ex.P.37 : Medical bills - Rs. 47,015/- (01-30 nos)
Ex.P.38 : Medical prescriptions (01-11 nos)
Ex.P.39 : X-rays (03 nos)
Ex.P. 40 & : Leave statements (only two pages each) 41 Ex.P. 42 : Pay slips to 44 III. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:-
-- NONE ---
IV. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:-
--- NIL ---
Digitally signed by
APPASAB APPASAB RAMAPPA
RAMAPPA NAIK
Date: 2026.01.29
NAIK 10:53:00 +0530
(APPASAB NAIK)
XXIV ADDL. SCJ & ACJM,
MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU.