Bangalore District Court
Meenakshi vs Suresh B.S on 21 January, 2026
KABC020018462023
BEFORE THE COURT OF 10th ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT:
BENGALURU
(SCCH-16)
Present: Sri. Mohammed Yunus Athani
B.A.,LL.B.,
X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.364/2023
Dated this 21st day of January, 2026
Petitioner: Meenakshi W/o Anil Kumar,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at BJKDL99, Kodalahangaraga,
Alanda, Gulbarga - 580 505.
(Sri Lokesha K. R., Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents: 1. Suresh B.S. S/o Sannarangaiah,
#17, 3rd Main Road,
Near Raghavendra School,
Vinayakanagara, Vrushabhavathi
Nagar, Bengaluru.
(RC owner of Bus bearing
Reg. No.KA-20-C-4097)
(Ex-parte)
2 MVC No.364/2023
2. Iffco-Tokio General Ins. Co. Ltd.,
Customers Service Centre,
#141, Sri Shanthi Towers,
5th Floor, 3rd Main, East of NGEF
Layout, Kasturibanagar,
Bengaluru - 560 043.
(Insurer of Bus bearing
Reg. No.KA-20-C-4097,
Policy No.1-2D4HPAUF, P400
Policy No.MO693716, valid from
31-03-2022 to 30-03-2023)
(Sri T. Ramesh, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from the respondents, on account of grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 05-11-2022 at about 1.30 a.m., the petitioner was traveling in the bus bearing Reg. No.KA-20-C-4097 along with other passengers, on Bengaluru-Mangaluru NH-75 road. The said bus was driven by its driver with high speed, 3 MVC No.364/2023 in a rash and negligent manner. When the said bus reached near Bridge at Gondihalli Village, Bellur Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District, the driver of the said bus lost control over the bus due to high speed and it went and dashed to rear side of a lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-52- AB-1197, which was going ahead of the said bus, towards Mangaluru. Due to the said impact, both bus and lorry were damaged extensively and the passengers in the said bus including the petitioner sustained severe head and bodily injuries and a person by name Akshay died on the spot. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Adichunchanagiri Hospital, B.G. Nagara, wherein she was treated as inpatient for two days and then she was shifted to Ramaiah Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein she took treatment as an in-patient. Earlier to the accident she was doing tailoring, piece work and household works and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. But, due to the accidental injuries, she has become permanently disabled 4 MVC No.364/2023 and thereby lost her earning capacity. The Bellur Police have registered the case against the driver of the said bus for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 304(A) of I.P.C. The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Hence, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition and award compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the respondent No.2 has appeared through its counsel and filed the written statement. Whereas, the respondent No.1 did not choose to appear and remained absent. Hence, the respondent No.1 is placed as ex-parte.
4. The respondent No.2 in its written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has admitted the issuance of insurance policy to the bus bearing 5 MVC No.364/2023 Reg. No.KA-20-C-4097 under Policy No.MO693716, valid from 31-03-2022 to 30-03-2023. Further, it is contended that, the liability to indemnify the respondent No.1 is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, valid and effective driving licence held by the driver of bus and valid registration certificate, fitness certificate and permit and also subject to the confirmation of Section 64VB of the Insurance Act. It seeks protection under Section 147 and 149(2) of Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the petition is bad for non compliance of provision under Sections 134(c) and 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the driver of the lorry bearing Reg. No.TN-52-AB-1197 was solely responsible for the alleged accident. In fact, the driver of the bus bearing Reg. No.KA-20-C-4097 was no way responsible for the accident. Further it is contended that, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the insured and insurer of the lorry bearing Reg. No.TN-52- 6 MVC No.364/2023 AB-1197 and driver of the bus bearing No.KA-20-C-4097 were not made a party to the proceedings. In fact, the insured and insurer of lorry bearing Reg. No.TN-52-AB-1197 and the driver of the bus bearing Reg. No.KA-20-C-4097 are also necessary party for the adjudication of present petition. Further it is contended that, the driver of bus was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle, as on the date of the accident. The respondent No.1 knowing fully well that, his driver did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle as on the date of accident, has willfully entrusted his vehicle to him and thereby committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Further it is contended that, the bus bearing Reg. No.KA-20-C-4097 was not having valid permit and fitness certificate, as on the date of accident. Hence the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. It has denied the age, income and avocation of the petitioner, injuries, medical expenses and treatment taken 7 MVC No.364/2023 by her. Further, it has sought for permission to contest even on behalf of respondent No.1, as per Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. For the above denials and contentions, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, she has sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident, alleged to have occurred on 05-11-2022 at about 1.30 a.m., on NH- 75 road, near bridge, Gondihalli Village, Belluru Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-20-C-4097 ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation ? If so, what is the quantum 8 MVC No.364/2023 and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?
6. In order to prove her case, the petitioner has got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked 22 documents as Ex.P.1 to 22. Further, she has got examined three more witnesses namely Dr. Nagaraj B.N., Timotheus Gabriel J. and Raviprakash B.G., as P.W.2 to P.W.4 respectively. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has not adduced any evidence on its behalf.
7. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the entire material placed on record.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following:9 MVC No.364/2023
REASONS
9. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioner that, on 05-11-2022 at about 1.30 a.m., when she was traveling in the bus bearing Reg. No.KA-20-C-4097 along with other passengers, on Bengaluru-Mangaluru NH-75 road, near Bridge at Gondihalli Village, Bellur Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District, the driver of the said bus drove the same with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over his vehicle and dashed to the rare side of an ongoing lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-52-AB-1197. Due to the said impact, she has sustained severe head and bodily injuries. Further it is contended that, earlier to the accident she was doing tailoring, piece work and household works and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. But, due to the accidental injuries, she has become permanently disabled and thereby lost her earning capacity.
10. In order to prove her case, the petitioner has got examined herself as P.W.1 by filing examination-in-chief 10 MVC No.364/2023 affidavit, wherein she has reiterated the entire averments made in the petition. Further, in support of her oral evidence, the petitioner has got marked total 22 documents as Ex.P.1 to 22. Out of the said documents, Ex.P.1 is true copy of F.I.R., Ex.P.2 is true copy of first information statement, Ex.P.3 is true copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P.4 is true copy of Motor Vehicles Accident report, Ex.P.5 is true copy of wound certificate, Ex.P.6 is true copy of charge- sheet, Ex.P.7 and 8 are discharge summary (total 2), Ex.P.9 is the notarized copy of Aadhar card of petitioner, Ex.P.10 are medical bills (total 122), Ex.P.11 are advance receipts (total 2), Ex.P.12 are medical bills (total 70), Ex.P.13 are prescriptions (total 6), Ex.P.14 is clinical report, Ex.P.15 is x- ray, Ex.P.16 is authorization letter, Ex.P.17 is true copy of MLC register extract, Ex.P.18 is true copy of MLC intimation, Ex.P.19 is in-patient record, Ex.P.20 is authorization letter, Ex.P.21 are inpatient records (total 2) and Ex.P.22 are out- patient records.
11 MVC No.364/2023
11. On meticulously going through the police documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 6, prima-facia it reveals that, the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending bus bearing Reg. No.KA-20-C-4097 and dashing the rare side of an ongoing lorry. Due to said impact, the petitioner being passenger of said bus has sustained grievous injuries i.e. L1 compression fracture with right knee second fracture with complete ACL tear with meniscal tear. The investigation officer in his final report, marked as Ex.P.6, has clearly stated that, the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending bus bearing Reg. No.KA-20-C-4097.
12. At the outset, is it pertinent to note that, in the present case, the date, time and place of accident, involvement of bus bearing Reg. No.KA-20-C-4097 in the accident, the issuance of insurance policy by the respondent No.2 in respect of said vehicle and its validity as 12 MVC No.364/2023 on the date of accident, are not in dispute. Further, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner has remained undisputed by the owner of offending vehicle/Respondent No.1, as he did not choose to appear and contest the case of the petitioner. Whereas, the respondent No.2 has specifically denied the above averred facts and circumstances of the accident and has taken specific defence that, the alleged accident has taken place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of lorry bearing Reg. No.TN-52-AB-1197 and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus bearing Reg. No.KA-20-C-4097 in the alleged accident. But, the respondent No.2 has failed to establish the said contentions. It has neither adduced any evidence, nor it has produced any document to establish the above contentions. Even, the respondents No.2 has not stepped into witness box to depose the said contentions on oath. In such circumstances, there is absolutely no evidence on record to 13 MVC No.364/2023 show that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry. On the other hand, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner clearly establishes that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending bus bearing Reg. No.KA-20-C-4097 and dashing the same to the rear portion of an ongoing lorry bearing Reg. No.TN-52-AB-1197. Though, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has cross-examined P.W.1 in length, nothing worth has been elicited from her mouth which creates doubt on the veracity of her evidence or which goes to show that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry or there was any contributory negligence on his part, in the cause of accident.
13. Further, the Ex.P.3 spot mahazar also clearly speaks that, the said accident has taken place on the left side of 30 feet wide on Bengaluru-Mangaluru NH-75 road, near 14 MVC No.364/2023 Bridge, Gondihalli Village, Bellur Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District, in between the offending bus bearing Reg. No.KA-20-C-4097 and ongoing lorry bearing Reg. No.TN-52- AB-1197. Further, as per the Motor Vehicle Accident Report, which is marked as Ex.P.4, the accident has not taken place due to any mechanical defects in the vehicle involved in the accident. When the accident was not caused due to the any mechanical defects in the offending bus bearing Reg. No.KA-20-C-4097 involved in the accident and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of ongoing lorry, then in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it can be presumed that, the said accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle. Further, the investigation officer in his Ex.P.6 final report/charge-sheet has clearly stated that, the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending bus bearing Reg. No.KA-20-C-4097 and the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the 15 MVC No.364/2023 said accident. Admittedly, the said final report/charge-sheet has not been challenged either by the driver or the owner of offending vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-20-C-4097. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the final report filed by the investigation officer and other police records, regarding the date, time and place of accident, involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident, negligence of the driver of offending vehicle and injuries caused to the petitioner in the said accident.
14. Further, on meticulously going through the Ex.P.5 wound certificate, Ex.P.7 and 8 discharge summaries (total
2), Ex.P.14 clinical report, Ex.P.15 x-ray, Ex.P.19 inpatient record, Ex.P.21 in-patient records (total 2) and Ex.P.22 out- patient records, it clearly reveals that, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident. She has suffered L1 compression fracture with right knee second fracture with complete ACL tear with meniscal tear. The P.W.2, who is the doctor who has examined the 16 MVC No.364/2023 petitioner for the purpose of assessment of disability, has clearly deposed in his evidence that, the petitioner has sustained above injuries in the road traffic accident. Though, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has cross- examined P.W.2 in length, nothing worth has been brought out from his mouth, which creates doubt on the veracity of his evidence. On the other hand, there is no rebuttal evidence placed on record by the respondents to show that, the above medical records produced by the petitioner are false documents.
15. Further, it is well settled principle of law that, in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as required to be done in a criminal trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Parameshwari V/s Amir Chand and others, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 635, has clearly held that, "in a road accident claim cases the strict principle of proof in a criminal case are not required."
17 MVC No.364/2023
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bimla Devi and others V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 513, has clearly held that, "in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are merely required to establish their case on touch stone of preponderance of probability and the standard of proof on beyond reasonable doubt could not be applied."
17. Therefore, in the light of ratio laid down in the above cited decisions and for the above stated reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioner has successfully proved that, she has sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident, occurred on 05-11-2022 at about 1.30 a.m., on Bengaluru-Mangaluru NH-75 road, near Bridge, Gondihalli Village, Bellur Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District, due to rash and negligent driving of 18 MVC No.364/2023 the driver of offending bus bearing Reg. No.KA-20-C-4097. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in Affirmative.
18. Issue No.2: While answering above issue this Court has come to conclusion that, the petitioner has successfully proved that, the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending bus bearing Reg. No.KA-20-C-4097 and she has sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. As per the medical records placed on record by the petitioner, she has sustained L1 compression fracture with right knee second fracture with complete ACL tear with meniscal tear. Therefore, this Court is of the further opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under various heads. The damages are to be assessed under two heads i.e. pecuniary damages, such as medical treatment, attendants, transport, actual loss of earning, future loss of earning etc., and non-pecuniary damages, such as mental and physical shock, loss of amenities, loss of expectation of life, loss of prospects of 19 MVC No.364/2023 marriage etc. The petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads:
i) Towards loss of future income: In order to determine the compensation towards loss of future income, the age, monthly income and disability of the petitioner are to be determined. To prove her age, the petitioner has produced the notarised copy of her Aadhar card, which is marked as Ex.P.9. As per Ex.P.9, the date of birth of the petitioner is 24-01-1984. The accident has taken place on 05-11-2022 at about 1.30 A.M. This clearly goes to show that, the age of the petitioner as on the date of accident was 39 years. Further, the P.W.2, who is the doctor, who has examined the petitioner for the purpose of assessment of disability, has clearly deposed in his examination-in-chief affidavit that, on clinical examination he found that, the petitioner has sustained L1 compression fracture with right knee second fracture with complete ACL tear with meniscal tear and for the said injuries the petitioner has taken 20 MVC No.364/2023 treatment as an inpatient. Further he has deposed that, on clinical and radiological examination of injuries suffered by the petitioner he found that, the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability of 40% to the right lower limb, 10% to the spine and 20% to the whole body. The Ex.P.5 wound certificate, Ex.P.7 and 8 discharge summaries (total
2), Ex.P.14 clinical report, Ex.P.15 x-ray, Ex.P.19 inpatient record, Ex.P.21 in-patient records (total 2) and Ex.P.22 out-
patient records also clearly speaks that, the petitioner has suffered the above stated injuries and for the said injuries she has taken treatment as an inpatient. Though, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has cross-examined P.W.2 in length, nothing worth has been elicited from his mouth which creates doubt on the veracity of his evidence. He has clearly denied the suggestions made to him that, the petitioner has not suffered any disability and he has exaggerated the percentage of disability. Further it is pertinent to note that, the P.W.2 has deposed in his 21 MVC No.364/2023 evidence that, the accident has occurred on 05-11-2022 and he has assessed the disability to the petitioner on 23-06- 2025, which is after lapse of two years and seven months from the date of injuries caused to the petitioner. Further he has admitted that, the fracture is united, injuries are healed, the petitioner do not require any further treatment or surgery, he has assessed only physical disability and the petitioner can perform his day to day activities with some difficulties. Therefore, in such circumstances and taking into consideration the age of the petitioner, injuries sustained, avocation of the petitioner, duration of treatment and oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that, considering the disability of 15% to the whole body of the petitioner would be justified. Hence, in the instant case the disability of 15% to the whole body of the petitioner is considered.
a) The petitioner has deposed in her evidence that, before accident she was doing tailoring, piece work and 22 MVC No.364/2023 household works and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Further she has deposed that, due to grievous injuries suffered in the said accident she is unable to do her work. The respondents have specifically denied the same. In such circumstances, the burden was on the petitioner to prove her avocation and income. But, the petitioner has failed to establish the same through cogent and corroborative evidence. She has not produced any document to show that, before accident she was doing tailoring, piece work and household works and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Therefore, in such circumstances, there is no other option before this Court, except to consider the notional income as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident has taken place in the year 2022. Hence, the notional income of the petitioner is considered as Rs.15,500/- per month and the annual income of the petitioner as Rs.1,86,000/-. 23 MVC No.364/2023
b) As per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma and others V/s Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the appropriate multiplier for a person whose is aged about 39 years is 15. Therefore, loss of future income is Total annual income X disability/100 X multiplier = Rs.1,86,000 X 15/100 X 15 = Rs.4,18,500/-.
ii) Medical expenses: The petitioner has deposed that, she has incurred expenses of Rs.4,75,000/- towards medical, conveyance, food & nourishment, attendant charges and other incidental charge. In order to prove the same, she has produced 192 medical bills, as per Ex.P.10 and 12. All the bills have been examined carefully and found that the petitioner has wrongly calculated the total amount in Ex.P.10 medical bills. Further, the bills at serial No.9, 15 and 16 in Ex.P.12 are advance receipts. Therefore, the said bills are not taken into consideration. Hence, the petitioner 24 MVC No.364/2023 is entitled for total amount of Rs.3,90,690/- under the head of medical expenses.
iii) Pain and sufferings: In the present case the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries i.e., L1 compression fracture with right knee second fracture with complete ACL tear with meniscal tear and for the said injuries the petitioner has taken treatment as an in-patient. As per Ex.P.7 and 8 discharge summaries (total 2), the petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient for 29 days, from 07-11-2022 to 29-11-2022 and 23-03-2024 to 28-03- 2024, in Ramaiah Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru. She has also undergone surgery. Further, as per P.W.2 the said injuries have caused physical disability to the petitioner. In such circumstances, certainly the petitioner would have suffered pain and sufferings. Therefore, taking into consideration the injury sustained and the disability suffered by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that, 25 MVC No.364/2023 compensation amount of Rs.60,000/- is to be awarded to the petitioner towards pain and sufferings.
iv) Attendant charges: As per Ex.P.7 and 8 discharge summaries (total 2), the petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient for 29 days in Ramaiah Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru. She might have spent considerable amount towards attendant charges during that period. Therefore, compensation of Rs.1000 x 29 = Rs.29,000/- is awarded towards the attendant charges.
v) Food and nourishment: As per Ex.P.7 and 8 discharge summaries (total 2), the petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient for 29 days in Ramaiah Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru. She might have spent considerable amount for food and nourishment during that period. Therefore, compensation of Rs.800 x 29 = Rs.23,200/- is awarded towards food and nourishment charges.
26 MVC No.364/2023
vi) Conveyance expenses: The petitioner is the resident of Kodalahangaraga, Alanda, Gulbarga, the accident has taken place on Bengaluru-Mangaluru NH-75 road, near Bridge, Gondihalli Village, Bellur Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District and she has taken treatment at Ramaiah Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru. Taking into consideration the distance in between the place of accident and the above hospital, compensation of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards conveyance.
vii) Loss of income during treatment period: The petitioner has taken treatment for 29 days as in-patient at Ramaiah Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru, for the grievous injuries sustained by her. She might have taken rest for about 4 months and lost her income for the said period. Therefore, Rs.15,500 x 4 = Rs.62,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during treatment period.
viii) Loss of amenities: It is evident from the documents placed on record that, as on the date of accident 27 MVC No.364/2023 the age of the petitioner was 39 years and unfortunately she has sustained L1 compression fracture with right knee second fracture with complete ACL tear with meniscal tear. The evidence shows that, she has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 15% to the whole body. Therefore, awarding compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities would be just and reasonable.
ix) Future medical expenses: The P.W.2 has clearly clearly admitted in his cross-examination that, the fracture is united and injuries are healed and petitioner do not require any further treatment or surgery. But, no where in the evidence the P.W.2 has stated that, the petitioner is in need of any further treatment. In such circumstances, question of awarding compensation to the petitioner towards future medical expenses does not arise. Hence, no compensation is awarded under the head future medical expenses.
28 MVC No.364/2023
19. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under different heads as follows :
1. Loss of future income Rs. 4,18,500-00
2. Medical expenses 3,90,690-00
3. Pain and sufferings 60,000-00
4. Attendant charges 29,000-00
5. Food and nourishment 23,200-00
6. Conveyance expenses 10,000-00
7. Loss of income during 62,000-00 treatment period
8. Loss of amenities 40,000-00
9. Future medical expenses Nil Total Rs. 10,33,390-00 In all, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,33,390/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petition till its realization.
20. Liability: Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle bearing No.KA-20-C-4097. The insurance policy bearing No.1-2D4HPAUF, P400 and policy bearing No.MO693716, issued by the respondent 29 MVC No.364/2023 No.2, in respect of offending bus bearing No.KA-20-C-4097, was valid from 31-03-2022 to 30-03-2023. As such, the said policy was valid as on the date of accident i.e. 05-11-2022. As such, there is no breach of any terms and conditions of the insurance policy committed by the insured/respondent No.1. Further, the evidence placed on record by the petitioner clearly establishes that, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-20-C-4097 the accident in question has taken place. In such circumstances, the respondent No.1 being the owner of said vehicle is vicariously liable to compensate for the damage caused by the said vehicle. The respondent No.2 being the insurer of the vehicle has to indemnify the respondent No.1. Therefore, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. However, the primary liability is on the respondent No.2 to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, for the above stated reasons, holding that, the 30 MVC No.364/2023 petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,33,390/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petition till its realization, from the respondent No.2, I answer Issue No.2 in Partly Affirmative.
21. Issue No.3: In view of the above findings, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.10,33,390/- (Rupees ten lakh thirty three thousand three hundred and ninty only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above compensation amount to the petitioner.
However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fastened 31 MVC No.364/2023 on respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the said amount within two months from the date of this order.
Out of total compensation amount awarded in favour of petitioner, 30% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in her name as fixed deposit in any nationalized bank, for the period of three years, with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining 70% amount with proportionate interest shall be released in her favour, through e-payment on proper identification and verification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this the 21 st day of January, 2026) (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.32 MVC No.364/2023
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
P.W.1: Meenakshi W/o Anil Kumar P.W.2: Dr. Nagaraj B.N. S/o Late B.K.N. Swamy P.W.3: Timotheus Gabriel J. S/o Late Jayavantha V. P.W.4: Raviprakash B.G. S/o B.H. Girinayak
Documents marked on behalf of petitioner:
Ex.P.1: True copy of F.I.R.
Ex.P.2: True copy of First Information Statement
Ex.P.3: True copy of Spot Mahazer
Ex.P.4: True copy of M.V.A. Report
Ex.P.5: True copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.6: True copy of Charge-sheet
Ex.P.7 & 8: Discharge Summaries (total 2)
Ex.P.9: Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of Petitioner
Ex.P.10: Medical Bills (total 122)
Ex.P.11: Advance Receipts (total 2)
Ex.P.12: Medical Bills (total 70)
Ex.P.13: Prescriptions (total 6)
Ex.P.14: Clinical Report
Ex.P.15: X-ray
Ex.P.16: Authorization Letter
Ex.P.17: True copy of MLC Register Extract
33 MVC No.364/2023
Ex.P.18: True copy of MLC Intimation
Ex.P.19: Inpatient Record
Ex.P.20: Authorization Letter
Ex.P.21: In-patient Records (total 2)
Ex.P.22: Out-patient Records
Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
-Nil-
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
-Nil-
(Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.