Bangalore District Court
Lakshmi vs Hosapet Kodappa Jagadeesh Alias H K ... on 16 April, 2026
KABC020189502025
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND
ADDL. MACT., BENGALURU, (SCCH-12)
Present: Smt.Vidyalaxmi Bhat
B.A, LL.B.,(Hon's)LL.M.
XI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-12, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2026
MVC.No.3283/2025
Petitioner : Lakshmi,
W/o. Late Hanumantharaju,
Aged about 49 years,
R/at #96, Vaderahalli,
Veerasagara Village,
Atturlayout Post,
Yelahanka,
Bengaluru District-560064.
(By Sri.Manjappa., Adv.)
V/s
Respondent/s: 1.Hosapet Kodappa Jagadeesh,
@ H.K.Jagadeesh,
S/o. H.M.Kodappa,
R/at, 778, 1st Floor, 22nd Cross,
1st Block, Near Gublala Gate,
Narayan Nagar, Doddakallasandra,
Bengaluru-560062.
2. The Divisional Manager,
Cholamandalam MS Gen Ins Co. Ltd,
Unit No.4, 9th Floor,
Golden Heights Complex,
(SCCH-12) 2 MVC. No.3283/2025
59th Cross, Industrial Suburb,
Rajajinagar, 4th M Block,
Bangalore-560010.
(Car bearing Regn.No.KA-05-NB-5526)
Policy No.3311/01859143/000/00
Covering from 01.01.2025 to 31.12.2025
(R-1 By Sri. R.B.Sadasivappa, Adv.)
R-2 By Sri. V.R.Muralidhara, Adv.)
JUDGMENT
By this judgment this Tribunal shall decide the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- in respect of injuries sustained by her in the Road Traffic Accident.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, on 02.04.2025 at about 11.40 am petitioner was travelling as a Passenger in auto bearing Regn No.KA-52-C-3405, near Tavarekere Village Turning, Thyamagondlu hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Dist, at that time driver of one car bearing reg No. KA-05-NB- 5526 came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner's vehicle. Due to the accident, petitioner sustained grievous injuries to all over the body.
3. Immediately she was shifted to BGS hospital, Nelamangala and she was admitted as inpatient. That petitioner sustained fracture of right patella, injury to right hand shoulder, head injury, abrasion over legs hands, chest, forehead, face hip joint, neck, check, back and other parts of the body. She underwent surgery and advised to take follow up treatment. That petitioner has spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards (SCCH-12) 3 MVC. No.3283/2025 treatment, medicines, conveyance nourishing food and other incidental expenses.
4. That due to the fracture petitioner is suffering permanent disability. Petitioner was Agriculturist and earning Rs.40,000/- per month. That accident occurred due to sole rash and negligent driving of the driver of car bearing reg.No. KA-05-NB- 5526. Thyamagondlu Police have registered case against the driver of said car bearing No. KA-05-NB-5526 in Crime No.39/2025, U/Sec 281 and 125(a) of BNS. After investigation, police have filed charge sheet u/s 281, 125(a) and 125(b) of BNS. The 1st respondent is R.C owner and 2nd respondent is insurer of car bearing No.KA-05-NB-5526 and they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. On all these grounds, she prayed to allow the petition and award compensation.
5. On issuance of notice, respondent no.1 and 2 are served. They appeared through their respective counsel. Both of them filed written statement.
6. 1st respondent denied the maintainability of case. The manner of accident alleged by the petitioner is denied. It is contended that the passenger auto driver was rash and negligent in driving the auto and he was solely negligent in the accident. That on the false complaint of one Sri. Chandana, W/o. Sri. Mahesh the police have filed charge sheet under Section 281 and 125(a) of BNS of 2023 against the 1 st respondent and the same is pending for consideration before the JMFC, Nelamangala. On all these grounds 1st respondent prayed to dismiss the petition.
(SCCH-12) 4 MVC. No.3283/2025
7. The 2nd respondent insurance company has filed written statement contending that petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. That vehicle No. KA-05-NB-5526 was insured with this respondent, but the liability is subjected to terms and conditions of the policy. The present claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The age, occupation, income and permanent disability alleged by the petitioner all are denied. That driver had no valid driving licence to drive the said auto. That there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the insured car. Therefore, this respondent is not liable to pay compensation to petitioner. On all these grounds, respondent no. 2 prayed to reject the petition.
8. On the basis of above pleadings, following issues are framed:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 02.04.2025 at about 11.40 a.m petitioner was traveling in Passenger auto bearing reg No. KA-52-C-3405, near Tavarekere Village turning, Tyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, at that one car bearing reg No.KA-05-NB-5526 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to auto and caused the accident, due to which petitioner sustained grievous injuries as alleged?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so by whom and what is the quantum?
3. What Order or Award?
9. To prove her case, petitioner entered witness box and got examined as P.W.1. Through her Ex.P.1 to P.14 documents are (SCCH-12) 5 MVC. No.3283/2025 marked. Medical Record Keeper at BGS Hospital got examined as PW.2. Through him Ex.P15 to Ex.P19 documents are marked. Dr. Nagaraj.B.N., Orthopaedic Surgeon at Sai ortho and Dental Center, Bengaluru got examined as P.W.3. Through him Ex.P.20 and 21 documents are marked and closed their side evidence. On the other hand respondents have not led any evidence.
10. Heard learned counsel for both sides and perused records.
11. On taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence placed before this Tribunal and arguments of both sides, I answer the above issues as follows: -
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2: Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.3: As per final order,
for the following;
REASONS
12. ISSUE NO.1 : Petitioner to prove actionable negligence on
part of opponent car driver filed chief examination affidavit and got examined as P.W.1. In her chief examination she reiterated petition averments and relied upon FIR, first information, spot panchanama, rough sketch, IMV notice, IMV report, wound certificate, final report and discharge summary.
13. On perusal of those documents it can be seen that daughter of the petitioner is 1st informant. She stated that on 02.04.2025 when they were going in passenger auto No. KA 52- C- 3405 along with her mother in- law, mother and grand mother near Tavarekere village turning, driver of one I 10 car (SCCH-12) 6 MVC. No.3283/2025 bearing No. KA -05- NB-5526 came in rash and negligent manner and caused accident. That due to the impact passengers in auto have sustained injuries and therefore action may be taken against the car driver. On the basis of this first information, Thyamagondlu police station on the date of accident and police have registered Crime No.39/2025 against the car driver for the offence punishable under Sec. 281,125(a) of BNS.
14. Spot panchanama was conducted which shows it is 20 feet wide tar road. As per the IMV report, there is damages to both the vehicles. As per the spot sketch, auto was on correct side of the road going from Tyamagondlu towards Muddalinganahallli, in the curving but car came to right side of the road in opposite direction to auto and caused accident. There was no need for the car driver to come to right side of the road in curving. As per the wound certificate petitioner was admitted to BGS hospital with the history of RTA dated 02.04.2025. As per the final report, car driver was found to be negligent and charge sheet is filed against him for the offences punishable under Sec. 281,125(a) and 125(b) of BNS.
15. In the cross examination PW1 has denied material suggestions made by 1st and 2nd respondents. She pleaded ignorance about auto driver and his DL details. The suggestion that auto driver was negligent is denied. Both the respondents have seriously disputed the negligence on part of the car driver. But both of them have not made any effort to prove that contention by leading evidence. Hence on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, petitioner has proved that the driver of (SCCH-12) 7 MVC. No.3283/2025 the car was rash and negligent in driving the same. Accordingly this issue is answered in the Affirmative.
16. ISSUE NO.2 : In view of above reasons, petitioner is entitled for compensation. To prove her age petitioner has produced her Aadhaar card at Ex.P.12 which shows her year of the birth as 1976. Accident took place on 02.04.2025. She was aged 49 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the age of the petitioner is considered as 49 years at the time of accident.
17. In respect of occupation it is stated that, she was doing agricultural work and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. She has not produced any document to show her income. Therefore notional income has to be considered. Accident having taken place in the year 2025 the monthly income of the petitioner is held as Rs.17,000/-.
18. In respect of permanent disability petitioner got examined Dr.Nagaraj B.N. as PW2. He is not a treated doctor. He has assessed only disability. According to him petitioner had sustained right patella distal pole fracture. She underwent surgery of ORIF with fiber tape on 07.04.2025 and fracture is mal-united. In his evidence he has mentioned that on examination of petitioner on 04.02.2026 for assessment of disability petitioner complaints of pain in right knee, unable to sit down, squat and sit cross leg and stand for long time. There is wasting of the right knee joint, restricted right knee movements. The X-ray of the right knee shows united patella fracture with implant in-situ. The P.W.2 doctor has assessed the permanent physical disability of right lower limb @40% and whole body disability @ 13%. Petitioner doing agricultural work, (SCCH-12) 8 MVC. No.3283/2025 the injury may come in the way of her occupation and in these circumstances, in the opinion of this court the functional disability affecting the income of the petitioner is 10%.
19. The quantum of compensation is determined as under:
(i) Medical expenses: The petitioner has produced 37 medical bills at Ex.P.11. Those bills are disputed but no concrete evidence is laid to dispute the bills. Hence, petitioner is entitled for Rs.87,129/- under this head.
(ii) Food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges:
The petitioner underwent surgery of ORIF with fiber tape as per discharge summary produced at Ex.P.10. It shows that petitioner was admitted to BGS MCH Hospital, Bangalore from 02.04.2025 to 09.04.2025. Total 8 days. Considering the cost of living, food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges in 2025, Rs.20,000/- is awarded under this head.
(iii) Loss of income during laid up period: Minimum 2 months is required to recover from grievous injury. Hence, her loss of income during laid up period is considered as Rs.17,000 X 2 months Rs 34,000/-.
(iv) Loss of future income due to Disability : As per the findings given above, there is 10% functional disability affecting the income of the petitioner. Hence, loss of future income due to disability is Rs.17,000/- income X 12 months X 10% disability X 13 multiplier to the age group of 46-50 years which comes up to Rs.2,65,200/- compensation is awarded under this head.
(v) For Future medical expenses: As per the evidence of doctor there is need for future surgery for removal of implants (SCCH-12) 9 MVC. No.3283/2025 but, no estimation is provided to that effect. Hence amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded for future medical treatment.
(vi) For Pain and sufferings: The petitioner has sustained fracture. Therefore, for pain and suffering the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.60,000/- .
(vii) Physical discomfort and loss of amenities of life : There is evidence of doctor to show that grievous injury has affected the normal life of the petitioner. Therefore, compensation of Rs.40,000/- is awarded under this head. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation precisely under the following heads;
Sl Particulars of Heads In Rs.
i. Medical expenses 87,129/-
ii. Food and nourishment, attendant and 20,000/-
conveyance charges.
iii Loss of income during laid up period 34,000/-
iv. Loss of future income due to 2,65,200/-
disability
v. Future medical expenses 25,000/-
vi Pain and sufferings 60,000/-
vii Physical discomfort and loss of 40,000/-
amenities of life
Total 5,31,329/-
20. Liability: There is valid insurance to the opponent vehicle as on the date of accident Hence, 2 nd respondent insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured and pay compensation to petitioner. As per the settled law, interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of deposit will have to (SCCH-12) 10 MVC. No.3283/2025 be awarded. Accordingly, I answer this Issue partly in the Affirmative.
21. ISSUE NO.3 : In view of above reasons I proceed to pass following;
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner u/Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
It is held that, petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs. 5,31,329/-
with interest @ 6% pa on Rs.5,06,329/-
from the date of petition till the date of payment. (Future medical expenses of Rs.25,000/- will not carry interest).
Respondent No.2 being insurer of car is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and hereby directed to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount with interest before this tribunal within 60 days from the date of this order.
On such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to have release of entire compensation amount without making FD.
The Advocate fee is fixed at
Rs.1,000/-.
Award be drawn accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced in the Open Court on this 16th day of April, 2026) (Vidyalaxmi Bhat) XI Addl. Small Causes Judge and ACJM, Bangalore.
(SCCH-12) 11 MVC. No.3283/2025
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined for the petitioner :-
P.W.1 Lakshmi P.W.2 Nagesh.R.N P.W.3 Dr. Nagaraj.B.N
Documents marked for the petitioner :-
Ex.P.1 Copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 Copy of first information
Ex.P.3 Spot panchanama
Ex.P.4 Rough Sketch
Ex.P.5 IMV notice
Ex.P.6 Answer to IMV notice
Ex.P.7 IMV report
Ex.P.8 Wound certificate
Ex.P.9 Final report
Ex.P.10 Discharge summary
Ex.P.11 37- Medical bills
Ex.P.12 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner
Ex.P.13 Notarized copy of PAN card of petitioner
Ex.P.14 Notarized copy of 1st page of passbook of
petitioner
Ex.P.15 Authorization Letter
Ex.P.16 Police intimation
Ex.P.17 MLC extract
Ex.P.18 IP file of Lakshmi
Ex.P.19 Discharge Summary inside the IP file of
Lakshmi
Ex.P.20 Clinical note
Ex.P.21 X-ray
(SCCH-12) 12 MVC. No.3283/2025
Witnesses examined for the respondents :-
- None-
Documents marked for the respondents :-
- None-
(Vidyalaxmi Bhat), XI Addl. Small Causes Judge and ACJM, Bangalore.