Bangalore District Court
Mohammed Chand Pasha vs Liberty General Insurance Co. Ltd on 27 June, 2025
KABC020322512022
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU. (SCCH-_25)
-: PRESENT:-
PRESENT: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA. R,
B.A.L, LL.B.,
XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2025
MVC No.6017/2022
PETITIONER: Mohammed Chand Pasha
S/o Mohammed Ibrahim Sab,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at : 127, Vinayaka Nagar,
Vidhyaranyapua,
Bangalore - 560 097.
(By Sri. H.R.Jayaram,
Advocate/s)
V/S
RESPONDENTS: 1. Liberty Gen. Ins. Co.
Ltd.,
No.1, Alyssa, 1st Floor,
Rear Portion,
Old No.28, New No.23,
Richmond Road,
Bangalore - 560 025.
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.6017/2022
Policy issued by its Office in
Policy
No.201250020121701612600000
Date of validity from 16.08.2022
to 16.08.2026.
(By Sri. H.K.Ramamurthy,
Advocate.)
2. Sri. Guli Nagaraju
S/o Obalappa,
Aged about 46 years,
R/at No.2187/1, S.Ramesh
Road, T.Dasarahalli,
Bangalore - 560 057.
(Ex-parte)
JUDGMENT
This judgment arise out of claim petition filed by the claimant against respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "Act") praying to award compensation in respect of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident occurred on 16.09.2022.
2. The case of the claimant in nutshell is that:
On 16.09.2022 at about 8.10pm, the petitioner was riding the Scooter bearing Reg.No.KA-03-JG- 1580 along with his wife and children slowly, SCCH-25 3 MVC No.6017/2022 cautiously observing all traffic norms, all of a sudden a motorcycle bearing No.KA-04-KF-6257 which was coming from opposite direction at very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against to his scooter. Consequently, petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that, Immediately, he was shifted to Sapthagiri Hospital, Bangalore wherein he was treated as an inpatient and discharged with advice. So far he has spent Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical and nourishment expenses. The petitioner is suffering with permanent disability. He is not able to lead a normal life as prior to the accident and suffered loss of income due to this accident.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that, prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy, he was an Electrician Contractor by profession and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Due to the accident he lost the income.
5. The accident has taken place solely due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-KF-6257 and in SCCH-25 4 MVC No.6017/2022 this regard a case has been registered by Jalahalli Traffic Police under Cr.No.93/2022. Hence, the respondents being the insurer and the RC Owner of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-04-KF-6257 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Hence, petitioner prays for award for the total compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-
6. In pursuance of notice, the respondent No.1 has appeared and filed written statement. In spite of due service of summons the respondent No.2 did not appeared hence, placed ex-parte.
6A. The 1st respondent in its written statement has denied the entire petition averments except admitting the issuance of policy in respect of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-04-KF-6257. Further contended that, the accident taken place only due to careless and negligence on the part of the petitioner. There is a non joinder of necessary parties to the petition. Further stated that the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-04-KF-6257 did not possess a valid and effective DL as on the date of accident. It has denied the age, occupation, medical expenses etc., Further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, prayed for SCCH-25 5 MVC No.6017/2022 dismissal of the petition against it.
7. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed for determination.
Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner proves that, the accident occurred on 16.09.2022 at 8.10pm due to rash and negligent riding of rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA-04-KF- 6257 and in the said accident petitioner sustained injuries?
Issue No.2: Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so. What is the quantum? From whom?
Issue No.3: What order or Award?
8. In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioner has examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 14 documents as per Exs.P.1 to 14. He has also got examined Dr.Nagaraj B.N. as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P15 & 16. On the other side, the respondent No.1 got examined its official as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1.
9. I have heard the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the SCCH-25 6 MVC No.6017/2022 following decision:
1. First Appeal No.1780/2024 : ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Arti Devi and Ors.
10. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties before this tribunal, my answers to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the affirmative
Issue No.2: Partly in affirmative
Issue No.3: As per final order for the
foregoing:
#REASONS#
11. Issue No.1: In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioner has examined himself as PW.1. The petitioner has examined doctor as PW.2. Exs.P1 to 14 were marked through PW.1. The PW.2 has got marked Exs.P15 &
16. The details of the exhibits are given in the annexure of the judgment.
12. The chief examination of the PW.1 is nothing but a repetition of plaint averments. The PW.1 has been subjected to cross examination. Nothing has been elicited from the mouth of the petitioner.
SCCH-25 7 MVC No.6017/202213. The petitioner has totally relied on the police documents to establish the negligence on the part of the offending vehicle's rider. It is no doubt the police have submitted the charge sheet against the rider of the offending motorcycle after thorough investigation. The sketch appended to spot mahazar indicates that the rider of the offending vehicle was almost on left side of the road. The road towards Abbigere from Chikkabanavara village. The width of the road is 40 feet and the accident was occurred on ten feet from the edge of left side which is proceeding towards Abbigere. The offending vehicle was from Abbigere to Kareguddadahalli. The oral evidence of the petitioner has coupled with documentary evidence. The insurance company has not denied the accident but their contention is the petitioner has also contributed to accident. But the material on record are clearly depicts that the petitioner was on the left side of his path. So, the arguments does not holds any kind of water. The material on records are clearly indicates that the accident has occurred sole negligence on the offending vehicle's rider.
14. The contention of the insurance company that the rider of the offending Vehicle was not having valid driving license at the time of accident. The SCCH-25 8 MVC No.6017/2022 RW.1 has reiterated the same along with other facts in his chief examination affidavit. The RW.1 has been subjected to cross examination. Nothing has been elicited throughout the cross examination.
15. A perusal of the charge sheet, the police have submitted the charge sheet against the accused or rider of the offending vehicle which is belongs to respondent No.2 and further the police have charge sheet against the respondent No.2 for the offense punishable under section 5 read with 180 of Motor Vehicle Act.. The police have referred section 279, 337,338 of IPC and section 3 (1), 181, 5(1), 180 of M.V.Act against the accused, So, as per the police documents, the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license at the time of alleged accident. Hence, it can be hold that the rider of the offending vehicle does not possessed the valid driving license at the time of the alleged accident. It is true that the insurer has not summoned the concerned RTO official to prove this aspect. When the petitioner has mainly relied on the police document to establish the negligence on the part of the rider of the offending vehicle, they can not denied other part of the document. In other words the documents should be read its entirety. So, I SCCH-25 9 MVC No.6017/2022 decline to accept the arguments canvassed by the petitioner counsel in respect to non examining of the official of Regional Transport office.
16. It is undisputed fact that the there was a delay in lodging the case. The First information report indicates that, the informant had not lodged the complaint in time as the owner of the offending vehicle was not come forward to settle the compensation. At this juncture, it is beneficial to refer the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAVI V/s. BADRINARAYAN AND OTHERS. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "in accident cases, human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the Police Station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. In SCCH-25 10 MVC No.6017/2022 cases of delay, the Courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim cannot be dismissed merely on that ground although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases. Delay in lodging the claim should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. In such cases, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof."
17. In the light of the Judgment referred to supra in RAVI's case, it is manifestly clear delay in lodging the FIR cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. However, the claim has to be examined SCCH-25 11 MVC No.6017/2022 with a closer scrutiny, particularly the contents of the FIR. The First Information report indicates that, the informant had not lodged the complaint as the owner of the offending vehicle was not come forward to settle the compensation. So, the informant has shown the reason for lodging the complaint with delay. Same has been highlighted in the relevant column of FIR. So, the reasons assigned by the informant is satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. In such cases, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof. It is well settled position of law that the proceedings under Motor Vehicle Act are summary in nature and it is beneficial legislation and the evidence required about negligence act is sufficient if it is in the nature of preponderance of probability.
18. As I referred above, the petitioner and other three persons were proceeding in one bike or in other words the rider of the motor bike has accompanied by two pillion riders. It is the contention of the insurer that triple riding is an offense and the rider of the bike has also contributed equally for the accident. It is undisputed fact that, in SCCH-25 12 MVC No.6017/2022 bike the rider and deceased and another persons were traveling. The entire materials on records does not discloses that such violation was the cause for the accident to attribute contributory negligence on the part of rider of the bike. In this regard I would like to rely on dictum of Our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in a decision reported in 12017 ACJ 1758. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held in paragraph No. 8 that, "8. A careful perusal of the se judgment makes it clear that the very violation of a statutory provision would not lead to negligence causing the accident. A concrete evidence causing is necessary to establish the violation of the statutory provision, resulting in negligence causing the accident. Only in such circumstances, proportionate contributory negligence could be attributable. No doubt three person were traveling on a motor cycle in violation of section 128 of the Act, but no evidence is led by the insurer to establish that the said violation of the statutory provision itself was the cause for the accident to 1 Bharma Kallappa Murashetti and others Vs Karamjeet Kaur and another SCCH-25 13 MVC No.6017/2022 attribute contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Merer taking a defense in the written statement would not suffice to establish the factum of contributory negligence, it has to be supported by direct and corroborative evidence, which is admittedly missing in the present case, since the insurer has not made any attempt to adduce evidence to establish contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It is well settled principle that for the insurer to avoid its liability, the breach of policy must be so fundamental in nature that it brings contract to an end. The burden of proving rests on the shoulder of the insurer to establish breach of the policy, which was fundamental in nature. That having not been done by the insure, no contributory negligence can be attributed on the part of the deceased. On the other hand, the police records very well establish that negligence on the part of the driver of th truck was the case for the accident. This vital material evidence was lost sight of by the tribunal which fixing contributory SCCH-25 14 MVC No.6017/2022 negligence to the extent of 50 percent on the deceased. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the negligence on the part of the deceased is not fit to be sustained. Accordingly, entire negligence is fixed on the driver of the truck and the insurer of the offending vehicle- respondent No.2 shall be liable to satisfy the award."
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in a decision reported in 2(2020) 3 SCC 57 in paragraph No.12 that, "12. But the above reason, in our view, is flawed. The fact that the deceased was riding on a motorcycle along with the driver and another, may not, by itself, without anything more, make him guilty of contributory negligence. At the most, it would make him guilty of being a party to the violation of the law. Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, imposes a restriction on the driver of a two- wheeled motorcycle, not to carry more than one person on the motorcycle.
2 Mohammed Siddique and another Vs Natinal Insurance Co. Ltd and others SCCH-25 15 MVC No.6017/2022 Section 194-C, inserted by Amendment Act 32 of 2019, prescribes a penalty for violation of safety measures for motorcycle drivers and pillion riders. Therefore, the fact that a person was a pillion rider on a motorcycle along with the driver and one more person on the pillion, may be a violation of the law. But such violation by itself, without anything more, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless it is established that his very act of riding along with two others, contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim. There must either be a causal connection between the violation and the accident or a causal connection between the violation and the impact of the accident upon the victim. It may so happen at times, that the accident could have been averted or the injuries sustained could have been of a lesser degree, if there had been no violation of the law by the victim. What could otherwise have resulted in a simple injury, might have resulted in a grievous SCCH-25 16 MVC No.6017/2022 injury or even death due to the violation of the law by the victim. It is in such cases, where, but for the violation of the law, either the accident could have been averted or the impact could have been minimized, that the principle of contributory negligence could be invoked. It is not the case of the insurer that the accident itself occurred as a result of three persons riding on a motorcycle. It is not even the case of the insurer that the accident would have been averted, if three persons were not riding on the motorcycle. The fact that the motorcycle was hit by the car from behind, is admitted. Interestingly, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was wearing a helmet and that the deceased was knocked down after the car hit the motorcycle from behind, are all not assailed. Therefore, the finding of the High Court that 2 persons on the pillion of the motorcycle, could have added to the imbalance, is nothing but presumptuous and is not based either upon pleading or upon the SCCH-25 17 MVC No.6017/2022 evidence on record. Nothing was extracted from PW 3 to the effect that 2 persons on the pillion added to the imbalance."
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in a decision 32018 (5) SCC 656 held "24. It will be useful to advert to the dictum in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal [N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457 :
1980 SCC (Cri) 774] , wherein it was contended by the vehicle owner that the criminal case in relation to the accident had ended in acquittal and for which reason the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act ought to be rejected. This Court negatived the said argument by observing that the nature of proof required to establish culpable rashness, punishable under IPC, is more stringent than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to create liability. The observation made in para 3 of the judgment would 3 Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., SCCH-25 18 MVC No.6017/2022 throw some light as to what should be the approach of the Tribunal in motor accident cases. The same reads thus :
"3. Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasising this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in SCCH-25 19 MVC No.6017/2022 the matter of careful driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their neighbor. Indeed, the State must seriously consider no-fault liability by legislation. A second aspect which pains us is the inadequacy of the compensation or undue parsimony practiced by tribunals. We must remember that judicial tribunals are State organs and Article 41 of the Constitution lays the jurisprudential foundation for State relief against accidental disablement of citizens. There is no justification for niggardliness in compensation. A third factor which is harrowing is the enormous delay in disposal of accident cases resulting in compensation, even if awarded, being postponed by several years. The States must appoint sufficient number of tribunals and the High Courts should insist upon quick disposals so that the trauma and tragedy already sustained may not be magnified by the injustice of delayed justice. Many States are unjustly SCCH-25 20 MVC No.6017/2022 indifferent in this regard."
25. In Dulcina Fernandes [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] , this Court examined similar situation where the evidence of claimant's eyewitness was discarded by the Tribunal and that the respondent in that case was acquitted in the criminal case concerning the accident. This Court, however, opined that it cannot be overlooked that upon investigation of the case registered against the respondent, prima facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial. The Court restated the settled principle that the evidence of the claimants ought to be examined by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied"
21. The Court cannot adopt strict liability as conducted in a criminal case to prove rash and SCCH-25 21 MVC No.6017/2022 negligence on the part of the rider of the respondent vehicle. But there should be prima-facie materials regarding rash and negligence to fix the owner and insurance company for payment of compensation. Therefore, a straight jacket formula cannot be adopted in accepting the rash and negligence on the part of rider of the insured. The materials on records are clearly indicates that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the respondent No.2's vehicle and the respondent No.2 has allowed the rider to rode the vehicle by knowing fully he was not possessed the valid driving license. So, I hold issue No.1 in the affirmative
22. Issue No.2: The petitioner has produced the wound certificate and call the medical records from the concerned hospital. The wound certificate (Ex.P6) discloses that, the petitioner has sustained
(i) Injury to the Nose-- Deformity, swelling, bleeding from the site, discoloration, (ii) Injury to right leg, deformity, swelling, ROM, bleeding from site, (iii) Lacerated wound over the left leg and (iv) Blunt injury to chest which are grievous and simple injuries. In this regard, the petitioner has examined one Dr. Nagaraj B.N. as P.W.2. The PW.2 has stated in the chief examination affidavit paragraph Nos.3 SCCH-25 22 MVC No.6017/2022 and 4 that "upon clinical examination the petitioner has sustained Type II Comminuted fracture of the left proximal tibia and fracture of the left patella. The petitioner was treated with wound debridement and external fixator and underwent ORIF with plate and screws for the left proximal tibia. The PW.2 has opined that the petitioner has total physical disability of the left lower limb 40% and to the whole body disability at 13%. He further stated petitioner needs another surgery for the removal of implants and the estimation of this surgery is around Rs.60,000/-. The PW.2 has been subjected to cross examination. The PW.2 has deposed that he was not treated the petitioner. He has seen only discharge summary and wound certificate. Fractures are united. External fixators are removed since there was no complications and screws are only fixed to the tibia.
23. Before discussing on this point, it is necessary to advert to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, SCCH-25 23 MVC No.6017/2022 fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.
24. Our Hon'ble High Court has held in a case MFA.811 OF 2015 (MV-I) decided on 18 July, 2019 in between Rajanna @ Raju and another V/s Srinivas and another that "It is necessary to understand the meaning of the expression "permanent disability", which has been elucidated in Rajkumar. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, disability refers to any SCCH-25 24 MVC No.6017/2022 restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation.
Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ("the Disabilities Act", for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, SCCH-25 25 MVC No.6017/2022 they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation.
12. 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;
(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."
25. By considering the dictums of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Our Hon'ble High Court and also evidence led by the medical officer, It is appears to Court that, the petitioner has sustained grievous and simple injuries. And it certainly affected on functioning over the right hand. The medical officer has given physical disability of 13% Points for functional loss of malocclusion. As such, the SCCH-25 26 MVC No.6017/2022 petitioner has has suffered permanent physical disability of 10%. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for the compensation under the following heads.
PECUNIARY DAMAGES I. Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and misc. expenditures.
26. The claimant has contended that he has taken treatment at Sapthagiri Hospital from 16.09.2022 to 26.09.2022 and again he was admitted to the same hospital and treated from 06.10.2022 to 12.10.2022 for 18 days. Further the Discharge Summary (Ex.P.7) of the petitioner produced by the PW.1 indicates that, the petitioner was admitted on 2 16.09.2022 to 26.09.2022 and from 06.10.2022 to 12.10.2022 at Sapthagiri Hospital. Bengaluru On careful perusal of the medical bills, it is appears to Court that there is no repetitive bills, advance bills. Hence, I award a sum of Rs.82,175/- as compensation to the claimant under the head of treatment and medical expenses. As supra said, the petitioner has admitted in the said Hospitals as inpatient for a period of nearly 18 days. Hence, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.250/-per day for attendant and SCCH-25 27 MVC No.6017/2022 Rs.250/- for food and nourishment charges, which would comes Rs.9,000/--. A sum of Rs.9,000/- is awarded under the head of attendant, food and nourishment charges.
(ii) LOSS OF EARNING
27. The claimant has contended that, he was working as an Electrician Contractor and was earning of Rs.25,000/- per month. In this regard, the petitioner has not placed any kind of document. He has failed to prove his exact income. So, considering the nature of work notional income of Rs.15,500/- pm is calculated to award loss of earning, it would meets the ends of justice. Therefore, I award Rs.9,300/- to the claimant under the head of loss of earning during the treatment.
(b) LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING ON ACCOUNT OF PERMANENT DISABILITY:
28. The claimant has examined the Doctor to substantiate the disability as PW-2. As already discussed above, the petitioner was suffered disability. The PW.2 has opined that the petitioner has disability of 13% Points for functional disability. As per the petition averments, the age of the claimant is 42 years. But, the DL and Aadhar Card SCCH-25 28 MVC No.6017/2022 marked at Exs.P9 & 10 clearly discloses that, the age of the petitioner was 42 years. Therefore, the age of the claimant is considered as 42 years to assess the loss of future earning and the multiplier is 14. As I have already stated the notional income of the claimant is Rs.15,500/-PM, The loss of future earning is calculated as Rs.15,500/- (Monthly income) X 12 (Months) X 14 (multiplier) X10 (disability)/100 =Rs.2,60,400/- which is the just and proper compensation payable to claimant. Even if any amount were to be granted under head, the petitioner will not be entitled for interest on this amount, in view of the decision in ILR 2000 Kar 1954 (Bhaskar @ Bhaskar Devaram Bangad Vs. R.K.Srinivasan & Another), wherein it is held that "the ratio in the said case would show that interest would not be payable in respect of future expenditure under different heads".
NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES (GENERAL DAMAGES)
(iii) Damages for pain and suffering and trauma consequence of the injuries.
29. The claimant has undergone pain and suffering during the accident and during the rehabilitation period. Therefore, I award SCCH-25 29 MVC No.6017/2022 Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the claimant under the head of pain and suffering.
30. As per the version of PW.2, the Petitioner needs another surgery for the removal of implant and the estimate of this surgery is around Rs.60,000/-. In this regard neither the petitioner nor PW.2 has produced any estimation bill about further surgery. As per the evidence of Pws.1 & 2 and looking at the earlier treatment cost and the evidence on record, it appears it would be justifiable if an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner under the head of Future Medical Expenses.
31. The claimant in all entitled for just compensation under the following heads:
Sl. No. NATURE OF THE HEADS COMPENSATION 01 Medical Expenses Rs.82,175=00 02 Loss of income during Rs.9,300 =00 treatment 03 Attendant, Food & Rs.9,000 =00 Nourishment charges 04 Pain and Suffering Rs.50,000=00 05 Loss of future earning on Rs.2,60,400=00 account of disability 06 Future Medical Expenses Rs.10,000=00 TOTAL Rs.4,20,875=00 SCCH-25 30 MVC No.6017/2022
32. As the petitioner is not entitled for interest on the loss of future income due to disability, it is relevant to note that total compensation amount awarded under (5) and (6) supra is Rs.2,70,400/-. Deducting the same from Rs.4,20,875/-, the amount that would fetch interest will be Rs.1,50,475/-. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,20,875/- with interest at 6% per annum on Rs.1,50,475/- from the date of petition till realization.
33. The next question is the liability to pay the said compensation. As I referred above the accident was occurred due rash and negligent riding of the offending motorcycle. It is not the case of the either respondents that, the insurance was not in force at the time of accident. As I referred above, the rider of the offending vehicle was ridden the offending bike without possessing the valid driving license. The alleged accident was occurred on 16.09.2022. It means the accident was occurred to post amendment of the Motor Vehicle Act. Section 150(2) of Motor Vehicle Act (amendment) reads thus:
"(2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment or SCCH-25 31 MVC No.6017/2022 award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as its execution is stayed pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto." Hence, fastening of liability on respondent No.1 viz insurance company does not arise at all. Hence, I answer issue No.2 partly in affirmative.
34. Issue No.3:- In view of my findings to the above Issues, I proceed to pass the following:
-: ORDER :-
The claim petition filed by claimant under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is allowed in part as against respondent No.2.
The Petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.4,20,875=00
(Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Five only) with SCCH-25 32 MVC No.6017/2022 interest at 6% per annum on Rs.1,50,475/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Five only) from the date of petition till realization.
The petitioner is not entitled for interest on Rs.2,70,400/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Thousand Four Hundred only) which is the compensation awarded towards future loss of income due to disability.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant and directed to deposit the same within 60 days from the date of this judgment.
On deposit of compensation, the claimant is entitled withdraw 70% and remaining 30% shall be invested as FD in any nationalized bank for a period of three years.
The Advocates fee of
Rs.1,000/- fixed.
SCCH-25 33 MVC No.6017/2022
Draw the award accordingly.
((Directly typed and computerized by the stenographer, corrected by me then pronounced in the open Court on this the 27th day of June, 2025) (RAGHAVENDRA.R) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined for Petitioner:
PW.1 Sri. Mohammed Chand Pasha PW.2 Dr. Nagaraj B.N.
List of Documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P1 Certified copy of FIR with complaint Ex.P2 Certified copy of Spot sketch Ex.P3 Certified copy of Spot mahazar Ex.P4 Certified copy of IMV report Ex.P5 Certified copy of Charge sheet Ex.P6 Certified copy of wound certificate Ex.P7 Discharge summary (2 in nos) Ex.P8 OPD case sheet (2 in nos) Ex.P9 Notarized copy of DL of petitioner Ex.P10 Notarized copy of Adhaar card of petitioner Ex.P11 Photos (5 in nos) with CD SCCH-25 34 MVC No.6017/2022 Ex.P12 Medical bills (67 in nos) Ex.P13 Medical prescriptions (5 in nos) Ex.P14 X-ray (6 in nos) Ex.P15 X-ray Ex.P16 Clinical examination report List of Witnesses examined for Respondent/s:
RW.1 Sri. B.L.Santhosh List of documents exhibited for Respondent:
Ex.R.1 True copy of Policy
(RAGHAVENDRA.R)
XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT,
Bangalore.
Digitally signed by
RAMACHANDRAPPA
RAMACHANDRAPPA RAGHAVENDRA
RAGHAVENDRA
Date: 2025.07.03
11:43:15 +0530