Bangalore District Court
Inchara N vs Nizamuddin A on 10 October, 2025
KABC020343412023
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 10th DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
MVC Nos.7183/2023 to 7185/2023 &
MVC No.7384/2023
PETITIONER/s Smt. Lakshmi K.S.
in MVC No.7183/2023: W/o Narendra Babu @
Narendra Babu Jayaramaiah
Aged about 42 years,
R/at No.52, 1st Main,
Chamundeshwari Layout,
Vidyaranyapura,
Bengaluru North,
Bengaluru - 560 097.
PETITIONER/s Inchara N.
in MVC No.7184/2023: D/o Narendra Babu @
Narendra Babu
Jayaramaiah,
Aged about 16 years,
Since Minor rep. by her
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.7183/2023
to MVC No.7185/2023
& MVC No.7384/2023
father and natural guardian
Narendra Babu @ Narendra
Babu Jayaramaiah.
R/at No.52, 1st Main,
Chamundeshwari Layout,
Vidyaranyapura,
Bengaluru North,
Bengaluru - 560 097.
PETITIONER/s Sri Narendra Babu @
in MVC No.7185/2023: Narendra Babu
Jayaramaiah
S/o Jayaramaiah,
Aged about 47 years,
R/at No.52, 1st Main,
Chamundeshwari Layout,
Vidyaranyapura,
Bengaluru North,
Bengaluru - 560 097.
PETITIONER/s Smt. Shobha S. @ Shobha
in MVC No.7384/2023: Reddy
W/o Prabhakar Reddy
Kogara,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at No.8/6,
Police Quarters,
7th Cross, Wilson Garden,
Bengaluru - 560 027.
Due to Severe injuries to
right hand the Petitioner
cannot affix her signature.
Hence, she has affixed her
left hand thumb impression
SCCH-25 3 MVC No.7183/2023
to MVC No.7185/2023
& MVC No.7384/2023
to this claim petition and
Vakalath.
(By Sri.N.R.Shivanna,
Advocate/s)
V/S
RESPONDENTS 1. Nizamuddin A.
in all the cases: S/o Abdul Quduse,
No.09, 6th Cross,
Near 2nd Main Road,
Someshwaraagar,
Jayanagar 1st Block,
Bengaluru- 560 011.
(RC owner of I-20 Car
bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MJ-
5977)
(Ex-parte)
2. ACKO Gen. Ins. ltd.,
#9, 17TH 'a' Main Road,
Near Sukh -Sagar
Restaurant, 5th Block,
Koramangala,
Bangalore - 560 095.
(Policy No.DCTR00785896383/00
VALID UP TO 11.02.2024)
(By Sri. A.N.Hegde,
Advocate/s.)
COMMON JUDGMENT
These judgments arises out of claim petitions SCCH-25 4 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 filed by the claimants against respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "Act") praying to award compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by them in the road traffic accident occurred on 22.10.2023. Since the respondents in these Four cases are the same, these cases are consolidated and common evidence is ordered to be recorded in MVC No.7183/2023.
2. The case of the claimants in nutshell is that:
On 22.10.2023 at about 8.15am, the petitioners were proceeding in a Fiat Fort Car bearing Reg.No.KA-50-N-3681, the same was driven by Narendra Babu @ Narendra Babu Jayaramaiah (petitioner in MVC No.7185/2023) towards Nandi Hills on the extreme left side of BB Main Road, slowly and cautiously by observing the traffic rules and regulations, while so proceeding reached on Kogilu Cross Flyover, Yelahanka, Bangalore, an I-10 Car bearing No.KA-01-MJ-5977 came from opposite direction i.e., from Devanahalli towards Yelahanka side, with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life, without observing SCCH-25 5 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 any of the traffic rules and regulations and dashed to road center median, jumped and came on the either side of the said road and dashed against the petitioners' Fiat Fort Car. Consequent to the terrific impact, all have sustained grievous injuries.
3. It is the case of the petitioner in MVC No.7183/2023 that:
Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Manipal Hospital, Airport Road, Bengaluru, wherein took treatment as an inpatient from 22.10.2023 to 25.10.2023, underwent surgery, after necessary treatment discharged with advice for follow up treatment. So far she has spent Rs.4,00,000/-
towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental expenses. On account of the said accidental injuries petitioner was completely bed ridden, she could not attend her work, undergoing deep mental shock since, the injuries caused are permanent in nature.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that, prior to the date of accident she was hale and healthy, working as a Women's Head Constable at SCCH-25 6 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 Karnataka State Police Department (SCRB), State Crime Record Bureau, M.S.Building, Bengaluru and earning Rs.62,000/- per month. Due to accidental injuries she could not attend her work, resulted in loss of earnings, earning capacity and put to great financial hardship. On account of the said accidental injuries the future promotions with high salary went in vain.
5. It is the case of the petitioner in MVC No.7184/2023 that:
Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Manipal Hospital, Airport Road, Bengaluru, wherein took treatment as an inpatient from 22.10.2023 to 24.10.2023, underwent surgery, after necessary treatment discharged with advice for follow up treatment. So far she has spent Rs.3,50,000/-
towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental expenses. On account of the said accidental injuries petitioner was completely bed ridden, she could not attend her day today work, undergoing deep mental shock since, the injuries caused are permanent in nature.
SCCH-25 7 MVC No.7183/2023to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023
6. It is the further case of the petitioner that, prior to the date of accident she was hale and healthy and was a brilliant student, studying 1st PUC - PCMB at Narayana PU College, Kempapura, Dasarahalli, Bangalore. Due to said accidental injuries she cannot attend to college and cannot concentrate on her studies, resulted in getting very poor marks.
7. It is the case of the petitioner in MVC No.7185/2023 that:
Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Manipal Hospital, Airport Road, Bengaluru, wherein took treatment as an inpatient from 22.10.2023 to 24.10.2023, underwent surgery, after necessary treatment discharged with advice for follow up treatment. So far he has spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental expenses. On account of the said accidental injuries petitioner was completely bed ridden, he could not attend his work, undergoing deep mental shock since, the injuries caused are permanent in nature.
8. It is the further case of the petitioner that, prior to the date of accident he was hale and healthy, SCCH-25 8 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 working as Operation Manager at WIPRO in different branches and earning Rs.1,25,000/- per month. Due to accidental injuries he could not attend his work, resulted in loss of earnings, earning capacity and put to great financial hardship.
9. It is the case of the petitioner in MVC No.7384/2023 that:
Immediately the petitioner was shifted to HOSMAT Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein took treatment as an inpatient from 22.10.2023 to 26.10.2023, underwent surgery, after necessary treatment discharged with advice for follow up treatment. Thereafter she has visited Narayana Netralaya Hospital on 30.10.2023, due to severe pain and swelling the petitioner once again taken treatment at HOSMAT hospital as an inpatient from 31.10.2023 to 02.11.2023, after necessary treatment discharged with advice and still she is in continuous follow up treatment. So far she has spent Rs.5,50,000/- towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental expenses. On account of the said accidental injuries petitioner was completely bed ridden, she could not attend her work, undergoing deep mental shock since, the SCCH-25 9 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 injuries caused are permanent in nature.
10. It is the further case of the petitioner that, prior to the date of accident she was hale and healthy, working as a Women's Head Constable at Karnataka State Police Department (SCRB), State Crime Record Bureau, M.S.Building, Bengaluru and earning Rs.62,000/- per month. Due to accidental injuries she could not attend her work, resulted in loss of earnings, earning capacity and put to great financial hardship. On account of the said accidental injuries the future promotions with high salary went in vain.
11. The accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent manner of driving by the driver of the I-20 Car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MJ-5977. The Jurisdictional Yelahanka Traffic Police have registered a case in their Cr.No.350/2023 and filed charge sheet against the offending Car driver p/u/Secs 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. The respondents being the RC owner and the insurer of the offending I-20 Car bearing No.KA-01-MJ-5977 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners in all the cases. Hence, in all the SCCH-25 10 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 cases, each petitioners prays for award for the total compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-, Rs.80,00,000/-, Rs.40,00,000/- and Rs.50,00,000/- respectively.
12. In pursuance of notice, the respondent No.2 has appeared and filed written statement in all the cases. In spite of due service of summons, the respondent No.1 did not appear hence, placed ex- parte in all the cases.
13. That the respondent No.2 in the written statement has denied the entire petition averments except admitting the issuance of policy in respect of the Car bearing No.KA-01-MJ-5977 in favour of the respondent No.1. There is non compliance of Sec.134(c) of MV Act. Further stated that, the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the Car bearing No.KA-50-N-3681 which the claimants were traveling. There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the I-20 Car bearing No.KA- 50-N-3681. Further stated that the offending Car driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. Further denied the age, occupation, income, treatment and medical expenses etc., Further contended that the SCCH-25 11 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 compensation claimed by the petitioners are excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, prayed for dismiss the petitions against it.
14. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed for determination.
(Issues in MVC No.7183/2023) Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner proves that, the accident occurred on 22.10.2023 at 8.15am due to rash and negligent driving of driver of I-20 Car bearing Reg.No.KA-01- MJ-5977 and in the said accident petitioner sustained injuries?
Issue No.2: Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? Form whom?
Issue No.3: What order or Award?
(Issues in MVC No.7184/2023) Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner proves that, the accident occurred on 22.10.2023 at 8.15am due to rash and negligent driving of driver of I-20 Car bearing Reg.No.KA-01- MJ-5977 and in the said accident petitioner sustained injuries?
Issue No.2: Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, SCCH-25 12 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 what is the quantum? Form whom?
Issue No.3: What order or Award?
(Issues in MVC No.7185/2023) Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner proves that, the accident occurred on 22.10.2023 at 8.15am due to rash and negligent driving of driver of I-20 Car bearing Reg.No.KA-01- MJ-5977 and in the said accident petitioner sustained injuries?
Issue No.2: Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? Form whom?
Issue No.3: What order or Award?
(Issues in MVC No.7384/2023) Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner proves that, the accident occurred on 22.10.2023 at 8.15am due to rash and negligent driving of driver of I-20 Car bearing Reg.No.KA-01- MJ-5977 and in the said accident petitioner sustained injuries?
Issue No.2: Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? Form whom?
Issue No.3: What order or Award?
SCCH-25 13 MVC No.7183/2023to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023
15. In order to substantiate the claim petitions contention, the petitioners of all the cases have examined themselves and guardian of the petitioner as PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P55 and Exs.P84 & 85.
In MVC No.7384/2023 Smt.Shanthamma - MRO got examined as PW.5 and got marked Exs.P.56 to 60. She got examined Four more witness as Pws.8, 9, 12 & 13 and got marked Exs.P.73, P.74, P.79 to P.83.
In MVC No.7185/2023 got examined one more witness as PW.10 and got marked Exs.P.75 & 76.
In MVC Nos.7183/2023 and 7184/2023 got examined one more witness as PW.11 and got marked Exs.P.77 & 78.
In MVC Nos.7184/2023, 7185/2023 and 7384/2023 Dr. Nagaraj B.N - Orthpaedic Surgeon got examined as PW.6 and got marked Exs.P.61 & 62.
In MVC Nos.7183/2023 to 7185/2023 Sri.Subramanya T.K. - MRO got examined as PW.7 and got marked Exs.P.63 to P.72.
On the other side the respondent neither examine any witness nor produced any documents on their behalf.
SCCH-25 14 MVC No.7183/2023to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023
16. I have heard the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties in all the cases.
The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:
1. 2025 ACJ 1061 : New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Dolly Satish Gandhi and Another.
2. 2011 ACJ 1 : Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another.
3. 2023 ACJ 595 : Hari Om Vs. National Ins. Co. Ltd., and Ors.
4. 2011 ACJ 1971 : B.Kothandapani Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
5. MFA No.102268/2019 (MV) : Chetana and Ors. Vs. Babuji M and Ors.
The counsel for the Respondent No.2 has relied upon the following decisions:
1. ILR 2010 KAR 2439 : Sri. Subash Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager and Ors.
2. MFA 3430/2014 : Mr. Arun Karadi Vs. The Regional Manager and Anr.
3. MFA 1800/2013 : Raghunatha Murthy Vs. Samuel and Anr.
4. AIR 2025 SC 2065 : RBANMS Educational Institution Vs. B. Gunashekar.SCCH-25 15 MVC No.7183/2023
to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 The counsel for the Petitioners have submitted the written arguments in all the cases.
17. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties before this tribunal, my answers to the above issues (in all cases) 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#
18. Issue No.1 in all the cases: In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioners of all the cases have examined themselves and Guardian of the petitioner (IMV No.7184/2023) as Pws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 55 and P.84 & 85. The petitioners have also got examined more witnesses as Pws.5 to 13 and got marked Exs.P.56 to P.83. The respondents did not examine any witness nor produced any documents on their behalf. The details of the exhibits are given in the annexure of the judgment.
SCCH-25 16 MVC No.7183/2023to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023
19. The chief examination of the Pws.1 to 4 are nothing but a repetition of plaint averments. These witnesses have been subjected to cross examination. During the cross examination of Pws.1 to 4, nothing worthwhile is elicited. They have denied the material suggestions in the cross examination.
20. The petitioners have totally relied on the police documents to establish the negligence on the part of the offending vehicle's driver. It is no doubt the police have submitted the charge sheet against the driver of the offending I-20 Car after thorough investigation. The sketch appended to spot mahazar clearly depicts that the offending vehicle has dashed to petitioner's car by crossing the center median. The petitioner's car was proceeding towards Devanahalli on the left side of the center median. It means the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The oral evidence of the petitioners have coupled with documentary evidence. The insurance company has denied the accident and manner of accident. But the material on record clearly depicts that the petitioners were on their right path or road and the offending vehicle was came from opposite direction. So, the SCCH-25 17 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 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 driver. When the driver of the offending offending vehicle had taken minimal care, the accident would have been postponed or not occurred.
21. The contention of the insurance company that the driver of the offending Vehicle was not having valid driving license at the time of accident. But the respondents, in this regard the respondents did not examine any witness nor produced any documents on their behalf. A perusal of the charge sheet, the police have submitted the charge sheet against the accused or driver of the offending vehicle which is belongs to respondent No.1 and further the police have charge sheet against the driver/respondent No.1 for the offense punishable under sections 279. 338 and 187 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The police have referred section 279, 337, 338 & 304(A) of IPC against the accused i.e., driver of the offending offending vehicle. So, it is indicates that the driver of the offending vehicle was in hurried manner and dashed to petitioner's Car SCCH-25 18 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 who was proceeding near Kogilu cross flyover and also the driver of the offending vehicle had driving license at the time of accident. Further, the respondents have not placed any iota evidence to substantiate the same. And the police have not charge sheeted for the offense punishable under section 3 read with 181 of Motor Vehicle Act. 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 driver.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in a decision 12018 (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 throw 1 Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., SCCH-25 19 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 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 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 SCCH-25 20 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 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 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"
23. The Court cannot adopt strict liability as conducted in a criminal case to prove rash and negligence on the part of the driver 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 SCCH-25 21 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 part of driver of the insured. The materials on records are clearly indicates that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1. So, I hold issue No.1 in all the cases in the affirmative.
24. Issue No.2 in MVC No.7183/2023:
The petitioner/PW.1 of MVC No.7183/2023 has produced the wound certificates from the concerned hospital. The wound certificate (Ex.P5) discloses that, the petitioner has sustained (i) Multiple lacerations present over the fact, (ii) Blunt injury to the abdomen with laceration of liver and subscapular avulsion present over left re renal vein bleed, (iii) Blunt injury to the chest with fracture of right 3 rd rib. And (v) Head injury with acute sub-arehandeled haemorrhage, abrasion falcine and left tenntorial bleed, right frontal contusion. Out of these injuries, injury No.1 is simple and others are grievous in nature. The petitioner got examined two witnesses as Pws.7 and 11 and got marked Exs.P.63 to 72 and P.77 and 78. During the cross examination of Pws.7 & 11, nothing worthwhile is elicited. The petitioner to prove the disability suffered by her, she has neither examined the treated SCCH-25 22 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 Doctor nor any other doctor to assess the disability. So, I am of the opinion that though the claimant is able to prove that she has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident but she has failed to prove that she had sustained permanent disability due to injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Considering the contents of Wound Certificate and nature of injury sustained in the accident, it can be presumed as per Ex.P.12 that the claimant has taken treatment at Manipal Hospital, Bangalore for about 4 days and she got recovered. Apart from this the petitioner has also produced medical bills at Ex.P.13 for Rs.3,53,581/- spent towards her treatment medicines. The petitioner has produced the Exs.P15 & 17 to establish the expenses towards nursing charges. No doubt it has been given by One Roopa R. But, this document did not depicts that experience of the nurse. It is true that this document shows that that the person referred in this document had received the payment through cash. But the petitioner has not placed any material worth to show that he had that much cash on hand to pay. When these being the circumstances, It is appears to Court that the petitioner has engaged the nurse but the petitioner has failed to prove the payment towards SCCH-25 23 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 the nursing charges. Hence, it is appears to Court to grant Rs.10,000/- Per month towards nursing charges/attendants charges.
25. The petitioner has examined the PW.9 i.e., House maid, she has deposed about service rendered by her and payment received from the petitioner. It is worth to note herein that the PW.9 has deposed that she has received the payment through cash. The petitioner has not produced any piece of the document to show that the amount referred by the PW.9 has been debited from her account or some other account or mobilizing the amount to pay to PW.9. It is true that the Bengaluru is not a small city it is cosmopolitan city, the payment to housemaid are not similar. But, the petitioner ought to have establish the payment by producing cogent evidence before the Court. Hence, it is necessary to grant an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards nourishment charges.
26. The petitioner has not disputed that out of the total medical bills, the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.1,57,937/- and remaining amount has been claimed through mediclaim. The counsel for the SCCH-25 24 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner is entitled for the amount incurred towards the medical including the amount paid by the health insurance company. In this regard the petitioner has relied the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay reported in 2025 ACJ 1061 2.
On going through the judgment, of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay has dissented the judgment of Our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2013 ACJ 2478. Our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held in a decision reported in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Manish Gupta, 2012 SCC OnLine Kar 9097 "we are of the view that the amount received by the claimant under the Mediclaim policy is required to be deducted from the total compensation awardable to the claimants under the head medical expenses. Indeed we hasten to add, if the claimant has not received any amount under the Mediclaim policy, the Tribunal is required to assess the amount expended by the claimant for the medical expenses and suitably award with reference to the bills produced by them. We also observe that if the amount awarded under the Mediclaim policy is much less than the actual amount expended by the claimant towards medical expenses, the shortfall or the balance is also 2 FA No.1344-2014 daed 28.03.2025 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vas Dolly Satish Gandhi And Another.
SCCH-25 25 MVC No.7183/2023to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 required to be made good by the tortfeasor, Therefore the determination of compensation on the head of medical expenses would in any case have to be made by the Tribunal. In other words, if the amount received under a Mediclaim policy is less than what has been determined by the Tribunal, the former would have to be deducted from the latter. On the other hand, if the amount received under the Mediclaim policy is higher than what is determined by the Tribunal, then no compensation under the head of medical expenses can be awarded by the Tribunal."
27. The Hon'ble High Court judicature at Bombay has pleased to dissented decision of Our Hon'ble High Court by relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sebastiani case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph No.13 in Sebastiani case that "13. As far as any amount paid under any insurance policy is concerned whatever is added to the estate of the deceased or his dependents is not because of the death of the deceased but because of the contract entered into between the deceased and the insurance company from where he took out the policy. The deceased paid premium on such life insurance and this amount would have accrued to the estate of the deceased either on maturity of the policy or on his death, whatever be the manner of his death. These amounts are paid because the deceased has wisely invested his savings. Similar would be the position in case of other investments like SCCH-25 26 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 bank deposits, share, debentures etc. The tortfeasor cannot take advantage of the foresight and wise financial investments made by the deceased."
28. At this juncture it is appears to Court that it is necessary to elaborate the terms used in healthcare finance fields i.e., mediclaim and health insurance.
3"A Mediclaim insurance policy serves as a financial safety net during hospitalization due to illness or injury. It is primarily designed to reimburse the medical expenses up to the sum insured. It reimburses the policyholder for medical expenses incurred during the hospital stay, including room charges, doctor fees, medications, and other sanctioned costs. While Mediclaim offers valuable coverage, it's important to understand that it typically focuses on in-patient care. For a more comprehensive health insurance plan that may encompass pre and post-hospitalisation expenses, outpatient consultations, and preventive care, a broader health insurance policy might be more suitable.
A health insurance policy is a comprehensive coverage plan that offers a wider range of benefits compared to a mediclaim policy. It not only covers hospitalisation expenses but also includes preventive care, outpatient treatments, and other related medical expenses.
It is a formal agreement between an individual (the insured) and an insurance 3 SOURCE Article published by HDFC LIFE INSURANCE: WWW.HDFCLIFE.COM SCCH-25 27 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 company (the insurer). The insured pays a regular premium in exchange for financial coverage against medical expenses arising from illness, injury, or accident. These policies can cover a wide range of costs, including hospitalisation charges, surgery fees, doctor consultations, diagnostic tests, and prescription medications.
Health insurance plans offer peace of mind and financial security, protecting you from the burden of potentially high medical bills. They come in various types and with different coverage options, so it's crucial to choose a plan that aligns with your specific needs and budget.
Difference Between Mediclaim and Health Insurance To better understand the disparities between mediclaim and health insurance, below is a table highlighting their key differences:
Feature Medclaim Policy Health Insurance Policy Covers hospitalization, Primarily pre & post Scope of hospitalization hospitalization expenses, Coverage expenses daycare procedures, ambulance charges Reimbursement Claim Reimbursement or fixed based on actual Settlement benefit, depending on expenses Ratio the plan incurred Cost Generally More comprehensive cheaper coverage leads to higher premiums SCCH-25 28 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 Basic coverage Extensive add-ons and Additional without benefits available (critical Benefits extensive add-
illness, maternity, etc.)
ons
Outpatient Typically not
Usually covered
Treatment covered
Preventive Usually not
Generally covered
Care covered
Usually not
Critical Illness Coverage provided
covered
Sum Insured Lower Higher
Renew ability Limited Usually renewable
Policy Term Short-term Long-term"
On going through the above referred article it can be said that mediclaim policy is a more limited form of health coverage that primarily focuses on hospitalization expenses due to illnesses or accidents. It usually does not cover acute diseases, preventive care, or outpatient care, but it does pay or immediately settle hospital expenditures up to the covered amount. On the contrary, health insurance policy is a more extensive and all-encompassing form of coverage. In addition to hospitalization, it covers pre- and post-hospitalization expenses, ambulance SCCH-25 29 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 charges, daycare services, outpatient department consultations, diagnostic testing, maternity benefits, and even coverage for serious illnesses. Additionally, some policies include wellness initiatives and free yearly health examinations as preventive healthcare services. So, in the present case on hand, the parties have opted the mediclaim policy rather than health insurance policy. By considering materials on record, the facts and circumstance appeared in the case on hand, I declined to opt the judgment of Hon'ble High Court Judicature at Bombay. So, the amount received by the claimant under the Mediclaim policy is required to be deducted from the total compensation awardable to the claimants under the head medical expenses. Therefore, after deducting the amount of Rs.1,80,190/- then the total amount comes to Rs.1,73,391/-. There is no contrary evidence from the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner entitled for the said amount under the head of Medical Expenses. Therefore, by considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident, nature of treatment taken by her, the period in which she has taken treatment as out-patient and also amount spent towards treatment, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of SCCH-25 30 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 Rs.3,33,391/- as compensation under following head to meets the ends of justice.
Sl. HEADS COMPENSATION No. AMOUNT
1. Pain and suffering already Rs.1,00,000=00 undergone and to be suffered in future including loss of comforts amenities on account of disability.
2. Medical Bills Rs.1,73,391=00
4. Conveyance, attendant Rs.60,000=00 and nourishment etc. TOTAL Rs.3,33,391=00
29. Issue No.2 in MVC 7184/2023:
In order to prove petitioner's disability, the guardian of the petitioner has got examined PW.2 but did not produced Wound Certificate.
30. The Petitioner, in order to show that she has suffered disabilities, has got examined Dr.Nagaraj B.N. as PW.6, he has given the details of the injury sustained Type-I open fracture of the right leg both bones fracture and right shoulder. He has got marked Exs.P.61 & 62 case notes and X-rays.
SCCH-25 31 MVC No.7183/2023to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 During his cross-examination, he has stated that, he has not treated the petitioner. The fractures are united. She has some difficulty to do day to day work. Further stated that the disability will decrease due to her young age.
Disability:
31. From the evidence of PW.6 and the documents on record, it is clear that the petitioner has suffered Type I Open fracture of the right leg both bones fracture and right shoulder. Petitioner was treated with ORIF with IMIL nail and later discharged. She has complains of pain in the right leg, unable to sit down, squat and sit cross leg and unable to walk fast, loss of sensation over the right knee and run fast. PW.6 further stated that on examination petitioner has healed scar over the right leg. PW.6 has assessed the physical disability of the lower limb at 42% and to the whole body at 14%. As such, by considering the age and healing of the injuries, this court deems it fit to fix the functional disability of the petitioner at 12%.
SCCH-25 32 MVC No.7183/2023to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 Age of the Petitioner:
32. The Petitioner, in order to prove her age, has produced notarized copy of Aadhar Card as per Ex.P.27. As per the said document, her date of birth is 23.03.2007. The accident occurred on 22.10.2023. As such, as on the date of accident the age of the Petitioner is considered as 16 years 3 months.
Quantum of Income and quantum of compensation:
33. The Petitioner, as on the date of accident, admittedly was a minor. In the recent decision Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs Baba Bhai Nagjibhai Rabari (Civil Appeal No. 10278 of 2025 decided on 08/08/2025 by relying on the decision rendered in the case Kajal V Jagadish Chand & others (2020) 4 SCC 413 and Baby Sakshi GreolaVs Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692 reiterated that, a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed in the same category as a non-earning individual for the purposes of assessing the amount of compensation because the child was not engaged in gainful employment at the time of the accident. In such a SCCH-25 33 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 case, the computation of compensation under the head of loss of income ought to be made by adopting, at the very least, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective State where the cause of action arises"
The alleged accident was occurred on 22.10.2023. As per notification issued by Central Government on 31st May 2010, the monthly wages fixed with effect from 31st May 2010 is Rs.8,000/-. The relevant notification is as under:
"S.O.1258(E) - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1B) of Section 4 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, (g of 1923), the Central Government hereby specified, for the purpose of Sub-Section (1) of the said section, the following amount as monthly wages, with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the official gazette, namely - Eight thousand rupees.
"With effect from 3rd January 2020 it is again amended and Rs.15,000/- is fixed."
In the present case on hand, the accident occurred on subsequent to 02.09.2021 and 03.09.2021 So, Court can take minimum wages at the rate of 15,000/- per month. The loss of future earning is SCCH-25 34 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 calculated as Rs.15,000/- (Monthly income) X 12 (Months) X 18 (multiplier) X 12 (disability)/100 = Rs.3,88,800/- which is the just and proper compensation payable to claimant under the head of Loss of future Income.
34. The guardian of the Petitioner has stated that he has spent Rs.3,94,004/-towards his medical, conveyance and nourishment etc., It is the case of the petitioner that, they have spent Rs.5,61,466/- towards medical bills and Rs.1,67,462/- has been reimbursed under mediclaim. In this regard he has produced medical bills for Rs.3,94,004/- as per Ex.P.23. Out of these bills, internal Page No.44 to 47 are pertaining one bill. There is no contrary evidence to these bills from the respondents. As I discussed in above paragraph, the petitioner is not entitled for the amount paid under the mediclaim. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.3,94,004/- under the heads of medical expenses. The petitioner has produced Uber Bills for Rs.2,367/- as per Ex.P.25 towards traveling expenses incurred at the time of treatment. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the amount of Rs.2,500/- under the head of conveyance expenses SCCH-25 35 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 and Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards Attendant, Food & Nourishment charges.
35. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation as follows:-
Sl. NATURE OF THE HEADS COMPENSATION No. 01 Medical Expenses Rs.3,94,004=00 02 Attendant, Food & Rs.10,000=00 Nourishment charges 03 Conveyance expenses Rs.2,500=00 04 Loss of future earning on Rs.3,88,800=00 account of disability TOTAL Rs.7,95,304=00
36. Issue No.2 in MVC 7185/2023:
The petitioner/PW.3 of MVC No.7185/2022 has not produced the wound certificate to show the details of the injuries/fractures. But he has produced discharge summary to show the fractures details and duration of the treatment taken by the petitioner. In this regard the petitioner has examined Dr.Nagaraj B.N. as PW.6. The PW.6 has stated in the chief examination affidavit that "upon clinical examination PW.6 found that the petitioner has suffered displaced SCCH-25 36 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 fracture of the right foot 2 nd, 3rd and 4th metatarsal, nasal bone fracture, left side multiple rib fracture. The petitioner was treated with CRIF with K wire on 22.11.2023 and later discharged on 24.10.2023 with advice for followup treatment. The Petitioner complains of pain and swelling of the right foot, unable to sit down, squat and sit cross leg and walk for long distance. On examination the petitioner has swollen right foot, restricted rigth foot and ankle movements. X-ray of the right foot shows mal-united fracture of the 3rd, 4th & 5th metatarsal bone. The PW.6 has opined that the petitioner has total physical disability of the right lower limb at 34% and to the whole body disability at 11%. The PW.6 has been subjected to cross examination. The PW.6 has deposed that he was not treated the petitioner. He had gone through the documents pertaining to the treatment, discharge summary. The fracture are united.
37. 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 SCCH-25 37 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, 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.
38. 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 SCCH-25 38 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 has been elucidated in Rajkumar. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, disability refers to any 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, 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 SCCH-25 39 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 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."
39. By considering the dictums of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Our Hon'ble High Court and also evidence led by the Doctor, It is appears to Court that, the medical officer has not expressed professional disability but expressed physical disability. The petitioner has sustained physical disability. And it definitely affected on the movements of the right leg. The Doctor has given disability of 11% Points for functional loss of malocclusion. By considering the nature of injuries and treatment, it is appears to Court that the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability of 10%. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for the compensation under the following heads.
SCCH-25 40 MVC No.7183/2023to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 PECUNIARY DAMAGES I. Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and misc. expenditures.
40. The claimant has contended that he has taken treatment at Manipal Hospital wherein admitted and treated as an inpatient for 3 days. The petitioner has produced the detailed in patient Bill marked at Ex.P32. The petitioner has pleaded that Rs.1,14,284/- has been reimbursed from the Universal Sompo Gen Ins. Co. Ltd under mediclaim policy. As I discussed in above paragraph, the petitioner is not entitled for the amount paid under the mediclaim. By deducting this amount from total amount, the petitioner has entitled for Rs.1,34,288/- under the medical expenses as there has repetitive bills or advanced bills.
41. The petitioner has produced the Ex.P37 to establish the expenses towards nursing charges. No doubt it has been given by One Narendra Babu J. But, this document did not depicts that experience of the nurse. It is true that this document shows that that the person referred in this document had SCCH-25 41 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 received the payment through cash. But the petitioner has not placed any material worth to show that he had that much cash on hand to pay. When these being the circumstances, It is appears to Court that the petitioner has engaged the nurse but the petitioner has failed to prove the payment towards the nursing charges. It is worth to note herein that the PW.11 has deposed that she has received the payment through cash. The petitioner has not produced any piece of the document to show that the amount referred by the PW.11 has been debited from his account or some other account or mobilizing the amount to pay to PW.11. It is true that the Bengaluru is not a small city it is cosmopolitan city, the payment to nurse is not smaller. But, the petitioner ought to have establish the payment by producing cogent evidence before the Court. Hence, it is necessary to grant an amount of Rs.70,000/- towards nursing/attendant and nourishment charges.
(ii) LOSS OF EARNING
42. The claimant has contended that, he was working as an Operation Manager at WIPRO in different branches and getting income of SCCH-25 42 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 Rs.1,25,000/- per month. In this regard, the petitioner has not produced any other documents like receipts, vouchers, Bank Statement etc. Further the PW.3 has deposed that he had taken twenty days leave and he was given regular salary. So, there was no loss of earning during the period. Hence, I decline to grant any amount under the loss of earning during the treatment.
(b) LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING ON ACCOUNT OF PERMANENT DISABILITY:
43. The claimant has examined the Doctor to substantiate the disability as PW-6. As already discussed above, the petitioner was suffered disability. The medical officer has given physical disability of 11% Points for functional loss of malocclusion. By considering the nature of injuries and treatment, it is appears to Court that the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability of 10%. As per the petition averments, the age of the claimant is 48 years. But, as per the Notarized Aadhar Card at Ex.P.36, the age of the petitioner was 47 years. Therefore, the age of the claimant is considered as 47 years to assess the loss of future earning and the multiplier is 13. During the cross SCCH-25 43 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 examination of PW.3, he has admitted that he is still working and getting Rs.1.27 lakhs per month. As such, the petitioner will not get any amount under this head.
NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES (GENERAL DAMAGES)
(iii) Damages for pain and suffering and trauma consequence of the injuries.
44. The claimant has undergone pain and suffering during the accident and during the rehabilitation period. Therefore, I award Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant under the head of pain and suffering.
45. The claimant in all entitled for just compensation under the following heads:
Sl. NATURE OF THE HEADS COMPENSATION No. 01 Medical Expenses Rs.1,34,288=00 02 Loss of income during NIL treatment 03 Attendant, Food & Rs.70,000=00 Nourishment charges 04 Pain and Suffering Rs.2,00,000=00 05 Loss of future earning on NIL account of disability TOTAL Rs.4,04,288=00 SCCH-25 44 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023
46. Issue No.2 in MVC 7384/2023:
The petitioner/PW.4 of MVC No.7384/2023 has not produced the wound certificate to show the details of the injuries/fractures. But she has produced discharge summaries to show the fractures details and duration of the treatment taken by the petitioner. In this regard the petitioner has examined MRO as PW.5 and got marked at Exs.P.56 to P.60 . During the cross examination of PW.5, nothing worthwhile is elicited. The petitioner also got examined Dr.Nagaraj B.N. as PW.6. The PW.6 has stated in the chief examination affidavit that "upon clinical examination PW.6 found that the petitioner has suffered right sub condylar fracture of mandible with Zygomatic maxillary fracture, right distal radius fracture. The petitioner was treated with ORIF with plate and screws for the right distal radius and later discharged on 26.10.2023, she said that later developed pain and was diagnosed to have fracture of the left remotal head with undisplaced fracture of the acetabulum with loose body. She underwent left hip arthorotomy and loose body removal. The Petitioner complains of pain in the left hip unable to walk normally, unable to sit down, squat and sit cross leg, SCCH-25 45 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 unable to lift weights in the right hand. On examination the petitioner has a limping gait, restricted left hip movements, wasting of the left thigh muscles, restricted right wrist movements with wasting of the left forearm muscles. X-ray of the right writst shows united fracture with implant in situ and X-ray of the left hip shows evidence of OA left hip with loose bodies. The PW.6 has opined that the petitioner has total disability of the right lower limb at 42% and total disability of the right arm at 35% and to the whole body disability at 24%. The PW.6 has been subjected to cross examination. The PW.6 has deposed that he was not treated the petitioner. He had gone through the documents pertaining to the treatment, discharge summary. The fracture are united. She has some difficulty in doing day to day work.
47. By considering the dictums of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Our Hon'ble High Court and also evidence led by the Doctor, It is appears to Court that, the petitioner has sustained physical disability. And it definitely affected on the movements of the right leg. The Doctor has given disability of 24% Points for functional loss of malocclusion. By SCCH-25 46 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 considering the nature of injuries and treatment, it is appears to Court that the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability of 20%. 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.
48. The claimant has contended that she has taken treatment at Manipal Hospital wherein provided first aid treatment and thereafter shifted to HOSMAT hospital, wherein admitted and treated as an inpatient for 5 days. Due to blur vision and swelling, she has visited Narayana Netralaya Hospital and thereafter NIMHANS. Once again she has taken treatment at HOSMAT hospital as an inpatient from 31.10.2023 to 02.11.2023 for 3 days. The evidence of the PW.13 and documentary evidence marked at Ex.P81 to 83 are clearly demonstrated that the medical bills were paid to hospital through Arogya Bhagay Scheme. Hence, I decline to grant the amount under this head though the petitioner has produced the medical bills. As supra said, the petitioner has SCCH-25 47 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 admitted in the said Hospital as inpatient for a period of 5 days which can be seen at Ex.P.40 discharge summaries. During the treatment time, the petitioner has appointed a Nurse by paying a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month to take care of her. In this regard, she has produced Ex.P.47, a letter appointment of nurse and also produced pay receipt book of Nurse/Maid at Ex.P.48 showing payment to the Nurse on monthly basis for Rs.96,000/-. In this regard she has also got examined maid as PW.8 and got marked Ex.P.73. It is true that this document shows that that the person referred in this document had received the payment through cash. But the petitioner has not placed any material worth to show that she had that much of cash on hand to pay. When these being the circumstances, It is appears to Court that the petitioner has engaged the nurse and maid but the petitioner has failed to prove the payment towards the nursing charges. It is worth to note herein that the witness has deposed that she has received the payment through cash. The petitioner has not produced any piece of the document to show that the amount referred by the PW.8 has been debited from her account or some other account or mobilizing the amount to pay to SCCH-25 48 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 PW.8. It is true that the Bengaluru is not a small city it is cosmopolitan city, the payment to nurse is not smaller. But, the petitioner ought to have establish the payment by producing cogent evidence before the Court. Hence, it is necessary to grant an amount of Rs.70,000/- towards nursing/attendant and nourishment charges
(ii) LOSS OF EARNING
49. The claimant has contended that, he was working as Women's Head Constable at karnataka State Police Department (SCRB) and getting Salary of Rs.62,000/- per month. In this regard, the petitioner has Pay Slip of November 2023 at Ex.P.85. Apart from this, she has also produced Leave Sanction letter 3 in Nos. at Ex.P.50. As per these documents petitioner has availed 59 days (25.10.2023 to 22.12.2023) of Earned Leave, 21 days (23.12.2023 to 12.01.2024) of Commuted Leave and 51 days (17.01.2024 to 07.03.2024) child care leave. It is not the case of the petitioner that their department has heldup the salary during these periods. Only earned leave can be surrendered but other two leaves can not be surrendered and those leaves are not earned leave. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for 21 days SCCH-25 49 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 earned leave viz., Rs,41,500/ and it would meets the ends of justice. Therefore, I award Rs.41,500/- to the claimant under the head of loss of earning during the treatment.
(b) LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING ON ACCOUNT OF PERMANENT DISABILITY:
50. The claimant has examined the Doctor to substantiate the disability as PW-6. As already discussed above, the petitioner was suffered disability. The medical officer has given physical disability of 24% Points for functional loss of malocclusion. By considering the nature of injuries and treatment, it is appears to Court that the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability of 20%. As per the petition averments, the age of the claimant is 42 years. But, as per the Notarized Aadhar Card at Ex.P.41, the age of the petitioner was 41 years. Therefore, the age of the claimant is considered as 41 years to assess the loss of future earning and the multiplier is 14. During the cross examination of PW.4, she has admitted that she is still working and getting Rs.82,000/- per month. As per the petition averments and evidence on record, the petitioner is being the police official and her day SCCH-25 50 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 to day to work is totally different from other works except the Army, Navy and Airforce. Therefore, the working capacity of the petitioner is certainly falling down compared to earlier. The medical officer has given only physical disability. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in a decision of 42025 INSC 1076 held in paragraph No.7 that " The disability to be assessed for the purpose of awarding compensation arising from a motor accident is the functional disability which reduces the earning capacity of the claimant and not strictly the medical disability" The petitioner has produced the salary certificate marked at Ex.P84. On perusal of the document indicates that the gross salary of the injured is Rs.59,437/- and deduction is Rs.41,879/-
and net salary is Rs.17,308/- only. As such, the salary of the petitioner is considered as Rs.48,771/-. The loss of future earning is calculated as Rs.48,771/- (Monthly income) X 12 (Months) X 14 (multiplier) X 20 (disability)/100 = Rs.16,38,705/- which is the just and proper compensation payable to claimant under this head.
Anoop Maheshwari Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. 4 Civil Appeal Nos.12098-12099 of 2024 dated 04.09.2025 SCCH-25 51 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES (GENERAL DAMAGES)
(iii) Damages for pain and suffering and trauma consequence of the injuries.
51. The claimant has undergone pain and suffering during the accident and during the rehabilitation period. Therefore, I award Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant under the head of pain and suffering.
52. As per the version of PW.6, the Petitioner needs another surgery for removal of implants and the estimating cost of the surgery is around Rs.60,000/-. In this regard neither the petitioner nor PW.4 has produced any estimation bill about further surgery. As per the evidence of Pws.4 & 6 and looking at the earlier treatment cost and the evidence on record, it appears it would be justifiable if an amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner under the head of Future Medical Expenses.
53. The claimant in all entitled for just compensation under the following heads:
SCCH-25 52 MVC No.7183/2023to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 Sl. NATURE OF THE HEADS COMPENSATION No. 01 Medical Expenses NIL 02 Loss of income during Rs.41,500=00 treatment 03 Attendant, Nursing and Rs.70,000=00 Nourishment charges 04 Pain and Suffering Rs.1,00,000=00 05 Loss of future earning on Rs.16,38,705 00 account of disability 06 Future Medical Expenses Rs.30,000=00 TOTAL Rs.18,80,205=00
54. The next question is the liability to pay the said compensation. As the respondents failed to prove their defense. The petitioner proved that as on the date of accident the policy was in force. Therefore, Respondent No.2 has to indemnify the respondent No.1 and liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Hence, I answer issue No.2 in all the cases partly in affirmative.
55. Issue No.3 in all the cases:- In view of my findings to the above points, I proceed to pass the following:
SCCH-25 53 MVC No.7183/2023to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023
-: ORDER :-
The claim petitions filed by claimants under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are allowed in part against respondent No.2.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and directed to deposit the same within 60 days from the date of this judgment.
The Petitioner of MVC
No.7183/2023 is entitled for
compensation of Rs.3,33,491/-
(Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety One Only) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition to till realization.
The Petitioner of MVC
No.7184/2023 is entitled for
compensation of Rs.7,95,304/-
(Rupees Seven Lakhs Ninety Five
Thousand Three Hundred and Four
SCCH-25 54 MVC No.7183/2023
to MVC No.7185/2023
& MVC No.7384/2023
Only) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition to till realization.
The Petitioner of MVC
No.7185/2023 is entitled for
compensation of Rs.4,04,288/-
(Rupees Four Lakhs four Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty Eight only) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition to till realization.
The Petitioner of MVC
No.7384/2023 is entitled for
compensation of Rs.18,80,205/-
(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Eighty
Thousand Two Hundred and Five
only) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition to till realization.
On deposit of compensation, the petitioners of MVC No.7183/2023, 7185/2023 and 7384/2023 are entitled to withdraw 70% and remaining 30% shall be invested as FD in their respective SCCH-25 55 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 names in any nationalized bank for a period of three years.
The guardian of the Petitioner of MVC No.7184/2023 is entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and remaining amount should be deposited in any nationalized bank till the petitioner attains age of majority.
The Advocates fee of Rs.1,000/-
fixed.
Keep the copies of this judgment in MVC No.7184/2023, 7185/2023 and 7384/2023.
Draw the award accordingly.
(Directly typed and computerized by the stenographer, corrected by me then pronounced in the open Court on this the 10th day of October, 2025) (RAGHAVENDRA R.) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the Petitioner:
PW.1 : Smt. Lakshmi K.S.
PW.2 : Sri. Narendra Babu @ Narendra Babu
Jayaramaiah
SCCH-25 56 MVC No.7183/2023
to MVC No.7185/2023
& MVC No.7384/2023
PW.3 : Sri. Narendra Babu @ Narendra Babu
Jayaramaiah
PW.4 : Smt. Shobha S @ Shobha Reddy
PW.5 : Smt. Shanthamma S.
PW.6 : Dr. Nagaraj B.N.
PW.7 : Mr. Subramanya T.K.
PW.8 : Smt. Roja V.N.
PW.9 : Smt. Rukminiyamma
PW.10: Sri. Narendra Naik
PW.11: Smt. Roopa R.
PW.12: Smt. Kavitha
PW.13: Smt. Poornima
List of documents marked for the petitioner:
Ex.P1 Certified copy of FIR and complaint Ex.P2 Certified copy of Spot mahazar Ex.P3 Certified copy of Spot sketch Ex.P4 Certified copy of AIR forms 2 in nos Ex.P5 Certified copy of Wound certificate Ex.P6 Certified copy of MLC intimation Ex.P7 Certified copy of Notice and reply u/Sec.133 of MV Act Ex.P8 Certified copy of Charge sheet Ex.P9 Notarized copy of DL of petitioner's husband SCCH-25 57 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 Ex.P10 Notarized copy of Adhaar card of petitioner Ex.P11 Notarized copy of Employee ID card of petitioner Ex.P12 Discharge summary Ex.P13 Medical bills 13 in nos Ex.P14 OPD slips 3 in nos Ex.P15 Appointment letter of nurse Ex.P16 Photos 7 in nos and one CD Ex.P17 Maid certification book Ex.P18 3 letters relating to leaves from SP, State Crime records Bearue Ex.P19 CT scans films 2 in nos Ex.P20 MRI scan films 3 in nos Ex.P21 X-rays 2 in nos with one CD Ex.P22 Discharge summaries 3 in nos Ex.P23 Medical bills 31 in nos Ex.P24 OP records 9 in nos Ex.P25 Uber bills 11 in nos Ex.P26 Medical prescription Ex.P27 Notarized copy of Adhaar card of petitioner and PW-2 (2 in nos) Ex.P28 Appointment letter of nurse Ex.P29 5 photographs with CD Ex.P30 X-rays 8 in nos with one CD and reports SCCH-25 58 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 Ex.P31 Discharge summary Ex.P32 Medical bills 19 in nos Ex.P33 Towing bill Ex.P34 OP records 8 in nos Ex.P35 Medical prescription 3 in nos Ex.P36 Notarized copy of Adhaar card of petitioner Ex.P37 Appointment letter of nurse Ex.P38 7 photographs with CD Ex.P39 X-rays 5 in nos with one CD and reports Ex.P40 Discharge summaries 4 in nos Ex.P41 Lab reports 5 in nos Ex.P42 Medical prescriptions 7 in nos Ex.P43 Medical bills 71 in nos Ex.P44 Other bills 12 in nos Ex.P45 Ola bills 20 in nos Ex.P46 Estimation slip Ex.P47 Appointment letter of nurse Ex.P48 Maid certificate book Ex.P49 Physiotherapy receipts Ex.P50 Leave sanction letter 3 in nos Ex.P51 Notarized copy of Adhaar card of petitioner Ex.P52 Notarized copy of Employee Id card of petitioner SCCH-25 59 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 Ex.P53 12 photos with one CD Ex.P54 CT scan 11 fims with CD Ex.P55 X-rays 9 films with CD and report Ex.P56 Authorization letter Ex.P57 Copy of MLC extract Ex.P58 Police intimation Ex.P59 IP record 2 in nos Ex.P60 One OP record Ex.P61 Case notes 3 in nos Ex.P62 X-rays Ex.P63 Authorization letter Ex.P64 Copy of Police intimation of Lakshmi Ex.P65 Copy of MLC register extract of Lakshmi Ex.P66 Case sheet of Lakshmi Ex.P67 Copy of Police intimation of Narendra Babu Ex.P68 Copy of MLC register extract of Narendra Babu Ex.P69 Case sheet of Narendra Babu Ex.P70 Copy of Police intimation of Inchara Ex.P71 Copy of MLC register extract of Inchara Ex.P72 Case sheet of Inchara Ex.P73 Notarized copy of Adhaar card of PW-8 SCCH-25 60 MVC No.7183/2023 to MVC No.7185/2023 & MVC No.7384/2023 Ex.P74 Notarized copy of Adhaar card of PW-9 Ex.P75 Notarized copy of Adhaar card of PW-10 Ex.P76 Notarized Copy of Nursing Certificate Ex.P77 Notarized copy of Adhaar card of PW-11 Ex.P78 Notarized Copy of Nursing Certificate Ex.P79 Notarized copy of Adhaar card of PW-12 Ex.P80 Notarized Copy of Nursing Certificate Ex.P81 Authorization letter Ex.P82 Reimbursement document Ex.P83 Copy of Claim Form Ex.P84 Salary slip of November 2023 Ex.P85 Salary slip of November 2023 List of witnesses examined for the Respondents.
-- NIL --
List of documents marked for the Respondents:
-- NIL --
(RAGHAVENDRA R.) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, Bangalore.Digitally signed by RAMACHANDRAPPA
RAMACHANDRAPPA RAGHAVENDRA RAGHAVENDRA Date: 2025.10.18 11:37:03 +0530