Bangalore District Court
Yuvaraj S.K vs Manu.S on 21 January, 2026
KABC020046942023
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES BENGALURU
(SCCH-18)
Dated: this the 21st day of January 2026
Present: DHANESH MUGALI
B.Com., LL.B.,(Spl.)
III ADDL. JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.893/2023
Petitioner : Shri. Yuvaraj S.K.
S/o Kalleshappa,
Aged about 32 years.
Residing at:
Singatagere Post & Hobli,
Kadur Taluk,
Chikkamagaluru District.
(Pleader by Smt.B.R.Usharani)
V/s
Respondents: 1. Shri S. Manu
S/o Sathyanarayana,
Siddaramahalli Village,
Biluvala Post, Kadur Taluk,
Chikkamagaluru District.
(Pleader by Sri. J.R.R.)
SCCH-18 2 MVC No.893/2023
2. Cholamandalam MS Gen.
Ins. Co. Ltd., No.135/5,
2nd Floor, 15th Cross,
J.P. Nagar, 3rd Phase,
Bengaluru - 560 078.
(By Pleader Sri.S.Maheswara)
*****
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
Brief facts of the petitioner's case are as under:
2. That on 25-01-2022 at about 8-30 p.m. the petitioner was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-18/W-9333 on Kadur - Belgur road, along with pillion rider Nagaveni, when they reached near Macheri bus stand, Macheri village, Kadur Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District, at that time, rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-66/K-3859 rode the same in a rash and negligent manner, came with high speed from opposite direction and dashed the SCCH-18 3 MVC No.893/2023 petitioner's motor cycle. As a result of which, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
3. It is stated that, immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kadur, for first aid, then he was shifted to Government hospital, Shivamogga, again he was shifted to Nagaraj Neuro Clinic for better treatment, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient and undergone surgery and spent more than Rs.4,00,000/- towards transportation, treatment, medicines, conveyance etc.,
4. It is also stated that, prior to the accident the petitioner was hale and healthy and working in Drip Shop, Kadur and earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. Due to accidental injuries, he could not able to do his work as earlier.
5. It is further stated that, the accident occurred due to negligent act of rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-66/K-3859. Hence the Kadur Police have filed charge sheet against rider of said vehicle in Cr.No.25/2022. As such, the respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the SCCH-18 4 MVC No.893/2023 petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed the instant petition, seeking compensation.
6. After service of summons, respondent No.1 and 2 appeared through their respective counsel. Inspite of granting sufficient time, the respondent No.1 did not file his written statement. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 insurance company has filed its written statement.
7. In the written statement, the respondent No.2 admitted about the issuance of policy in respect of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-66/K-3859 and the liability of this respondent is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It is contended that, the rider of offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to ride the said vehicle as on the date of accident, hence there is a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is contended that the accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the petitioner, as he was not wearing safety helmet on the date of accident. Further stated that, there is delay in lodging the complaint. Further denied the age, SCCH-18 5 MVC No.893/2023 avocation and income of the petitioner. Ultimately contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. With all these main grounds, prayed to dismiss the petition with cost.
8. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties, this court has framed the following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the Petitioner proves that, on 252-01-2022 at about 8-30 p.m. when he was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-18/W-9333 proceeding on Kadur - Belgur road, along with Pillion rider, when they reached near Macheri bus stand, at that time, rider of Motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-66/K-3859 rode the same in a rash and negligent manner came at high speed from opposite direction and dashed the petitioner's motor cycle and caused the accident. Due to forced impact, the Petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? If so, at what rate? from whom?
3) What order or award?SCCH-18 6 MVC No.893/2023
9. In order to substantiate his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. In addition to his evidence, placed the evidence of Dr.Madhura M. Khanapur as PW2 and got marked one document as Ex.P16.
10. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has examined its Deputy Manager as RW1 and got marked documents as Ex.R1 & Ex.R2.
11. Heard the arguments and perused the materials available on record.
12. At the time of argument the counsel for the petitioner has relied the following decision;
(2018)9 Supreme Court Cases 650 between Shamanna & Another Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., & Others Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the principle of pay and recovery in case offending vehicle driver has no driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident.
SCCH-18 7 MVC No.893/202313. At the time of argument the counsel for the respondent No.2 has relied the following decision;
SLP 11757/2025 between Mahaveer Vs. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,& Others, Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that, "insurer cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured when he fails to prove that the offending vehicle was entrusted to a person with a valid driving licence".
14. My answer to the aforesaid issues are 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:
R E A S O N S
ISSUE No.1:
15. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, due to the actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-66/K- 3859 the alleged accident had taken place, consequently, he had sustained grievous injuries.
SCCH-18 8 MVC No.893/202316. On the other hand, the respondents have contended that the accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the petitioner only and not on the part of the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-66/K-3859.
17. In the light of the rival contentions of both the parties, on going through the above issue burden is on the petitioner to prove the above issue on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities.
18. The petitioner in order to prove his case got examined himself as PW1. He has reiterated the averments made in the petition. The petitioner in support of his oral evidence has relied upon the police documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. Ex.P1-true copy of FIR, Ex.P2- true copy of FIS, Ex.P3-true copy of spot mahazar true, Ex.P4-copy of spot sketch, Ex.P5-true copy of IMV report, Ex.P6-true copy of wound certificate and Ex.P7-true copy of charge sheet.
19. On perusal of the police documents, it could be seen that based upon the first information statement SCCH-18 9 MVC No.893/2023 given by the petitioner, registered the case against the rider of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under Section 283 and 337 of I.P.C. Upon investigation, the Investigation Officer of the case has filed charge sheet against the rider of the offending vehicle alleging that he has committed the offences punishable under section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC & Section 181 of IMV Act.
20. In order to substantiate the defence of the respondent No.2 has examined its Deputy Manager as RW1. He has deposed in his evidence that, there is no negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-66-K-3859. Further contended that the alleged accident took place on 25.1.2022, the claim petition was instituted on 14.2.2023, after lapse of one year one month. As per the amendment of MV Act dated 1.4.2022, the claim petition has to be instituted within 6 months from the date of accident. In this regard the respondent No.2 except making allegations has not placed any relevant documents to disprove the allegations made against the rider of the offending vehicle and to prove its defence. Moreover, he has not SCCH-18 10 MVC No.893/2023 examined the rider of the offending vehicle or any independent eye witness to disprove the case of the petitioner.
21. Apart from this, even at the time of cross- examination of PW1, no material answers culled out to believe the defences of the respondent No.2 about the denial of allegation made against the rider of the offending vehicle.
22. In the light of the evidence placed on record, it is crystal clear that, the alleged accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-66-K-3859. As such, the petitioner has placed the satisfactory and convincing evidence on record to prove the above issue. Hence, without making much discussion on the point of rash and negligent driving of the rider of the offending vehicle, I am answering the issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
ISSUE No.2:
23. This issue is with respect to the entitlement of reliefs claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner through SCCH-18 11 MVC No.893/2023 this petition, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident under different heads.
24. Before appreciation of the evidence placed by the petitioner about the injuries sustained by him, in the accident and its consequences, it is apt to note herein, the preposition laid down in the following land mark judgment, while appreciating the injuries cases in Motor Vehicle Act.
Civil Appeal No.8981/2010 D.D. 18.10.2010 Rajkumar V/s Ajay Kumar & Another of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
"In the aforesaid case, it was held that, the court has to make judicious attempt to award compensation to the loss suffered by the claimant. The compensation should not be assessed conservatively. On the other hand, compensation should also not be endeavouring to secure some uniformity and consistency. The object of awarding compensation 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." "while determining quantum of compensation, in such cases, the court has to strike a balance between the inflated and unreasonable demands of a victim and the equally untenable claim of the opposite party saying SCCH-18 12 MVC No.893/2023 that nothing is payable. That sympathy for the victim does not, and should not, comes in the way of making a correct assessment. But if a case is made out, and the court must not be chary of awarding adequate compensation. "
Pain and Sufferings;
25. PW1 has stated in his evidence that, he has sustained the injuries in a road traffic accident. In connection with the injuries he has produced wound certificate marked as Ex.P6. The said document discloses that, he had sustained the following injuries:-
1) MRI Brain shows subdural hematoma
2) CT PNS shows Fracture of foot of right orbit, Fracture right frontal sinus anterior with posterior wall Fracture right nasal bone with frontal hemosinus Fracture of right lamina right estimond hemosinus
3) X-ray shows fracture 5th metatarsal with left clavicle fracture
26. In connection with the above said injuries the doctor is of the opinion that, the said injuriers are grievous in nature. Further, the petitioner has SCCH-18 13 MVC No.893/2023 produced discharge summary, ER record and outpatient records at Ex.P8, Ex.P12 to Ex.P14. On perusal of discharge summary issued by Nagaraj Neuro Clinic as per Ex.P8, which reveals that petitioner was admitted to the said hospital from 26.1.2022 to 27.1.2022. In addition to his evidence placed the evidence of Madhura M.Khanapur as PW2. He has deposed that the petitioner has sustained Traumatic optic atrophy (Neuropathy) with exotropia and no perception of light. He has placed outpatient record, at Ex.P16. By taking into consideration of the nature of the injuries and the treatment taken by the petitioner, he might have undergone pain and sufferings while taking treatment, as an in patient as well as an outpatient. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.80,000/- under the head of Pain and Sufferings.
Loss of income during treatment period:
27. PW1 has stated that, he was working in drip shop and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. In this regard, there is no iota of documents to show the income of the petitioner. Hence, in the absence of the SCCH-18 14 MVC No.893/2023 documents, it is apt to take the notional income as per law. On perusal of discharge summary issued by Nagaraj Neuro Clinic as per Ex.P8, which reveals that petitioner was admitted to the said hospital from 26.1.2022 to 27.1.2022. During the period of treatment, definitely, there was some difficulty to him to do daily routine work and to do his work for livelihood at least for a period of two months by looking in to the nature of the injuries sustained by him.
Hence, I am of the view that, it is just and proper to award compensation of Rs.31,000/- towards loss of income during the laid up period and rest period.
Medical Expeneses;
28. The petitioner in connection with his treatment expenses, he has produced medical bills at Ex.P15 to the extent of Rs.26,052/-. Except the suguestion there are no contra materials available on record to disprove the medical bills. On perusal of medical bills Sl.No.10 for Rs.1,300/-, Sl.No.11,for Rs.1,460, Sl.No.12 for Rs.3,150/-, Sl.No.13 for Rs.1,017/- and Sl.No.15 for Rs.595/- are not having SCCH-18 15 MVC No.893/2023 seal and signature. After deducting the said amount of Rs.7,522/- from 26,052/-, it comes to Rs.18,530/-. Hence, it is just and proper to award compensation of Rs.18,530/- towards medical expenses.
Attendant charges, food and nourishment and conveyance charges;
29. The petitioner herein, as per the medical records and also on going through the discharge summary the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient and as an outpatient, definitely the petitioner could have spent some amount towards, food, nourishment, conveyance, as well as attendant charges. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges, food, nourishment and conveyance charges.
Loss of future income;
30. The petitioner herein, asserting that, he had sustained permanent disability, consequent upon the injuries sustained by him. In order to prove the same, the petitioner has relied on his evidence along with the wound certificate and other medical documents. In the SCCH-18 16 MVC No.893/2023 evidence of the PW1, reiterated the same thing forthcoming in the main petition. As already discussed above, wound certificate placed by him as per Ex.P6 goes to show that, he had sustained grievous injuries for which he took the treatment as an inpatient. Apart from this, another material witness by name Dr.Madhura M.Khanapur, examined as PW2. He has stated in his evidence that, the petitioner has sustained traumatic optic atrophy (Neuropathy) with exotropia and no perception of light. In support of his evidence he has produced outpatient record at Ex.P16.
31. Further, PW2 has stated that, at the time of examination of the petitioner, petitioner complaints no vision in the right eye since the time of accident for 3 years 7 months. PW2 has assessed permanent physical disability at 30%.
32. In the cross-examination he has stated that no vision in the right eye of the petitioner. The left eye of the petitioner is normal. Further denied the suggestion that he has not the appropriate person to give evidence.
SCCH-18 17 MVC No.893/202333. Over all appreciation of evidence of PW2 along with the entire medical documents the whole body disability expressed by PW2 as physical disability is at 30%. Hence, by taking into consideration of point of disability expressed by PW3, it is apt to take disability as 15% instead of 30%. The same will meets the ends of justice.
34. In connection with the age of the petitioner is concerned, on going through the cause title of the petition reveals that, as on the date of the petition, his age was 32 years. In support of the age proof, he has placed Aadhar card and driving licence at Ex.P9 & Ex.P10 for consideration. On perusal of the said documents, his date of birth is mentioned as 30.5.1989. The alleged accident occurred on 25.1.2022. Therefore, as on the date of accident, the age of the petitioner is considered as 33 years. To the said age as per Sarla Verma case, multiplier '16' is to be taken into consideration.
35. Next factual aspect of the income of the petitioner is concerned, in his evidence the petitioner has stated that, prior to the accident he was working SCCH-18 18 MVC No.893/2023 drip shop and getting an income of Rs.20,000/- per month. In this regard, he has not placed any iota of documents. In the absence of the material documents, notional income has to be taken into consideration. But the said notional income is to be taken judiciously, by taking into consideration of the year of the accident. It is pertinent to note that, in the case on hand, the alleged accident had taken place in the year 2022. As per the notional income chart, I am of the view that, it is apt to take the notional income of the petitioner as Rs.15,500/- for the year 2022.
36. In the light of my detailed discussions held above, no doubt injuries sustained by the petitioner, definitely come in the way of his future, in a slight manner, to do his daily routine work, as well as to do his work for livelihood on going through his age criteria. Hence, the petitioner herein, is entitled for compensation under loss of future income as follows:
Rs.15,500 X 12 X 16 X15/100= Rs.4,46,400/-.
Loss of amenities;
37. PW1 has stated in his evidence that due to the accidental injuries, he is not able to do his work.
SCCH-18 19 MVC No.893/2023On perusal of evidence of PW1 and PW2 and also medical documents, I am of the view that, the petitioner will suffer a slight problem in future also, to do his normal work, as well as his work for livelihood. Hence, it is just and proper to award compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities.
Future Medical Expenses;
38. PW2 has not stated about future medication. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for compensation under the head of future medication.
39. In view of my discussions held above, on various aspects the petitioner is entitled for compensation in to to, under the following heads:
Compensation heads Compensation
amount
1.Pain and Suffering Rs. 80,000-00
2.Loss of income during laid- Rs. 31,000-00 up period and rest period
3. Medical expenses Rs. 18,530-00
4. Attendant, Nourishment Rs. 5,000-00 and Conveyance Charges
5. Loss of future income due Rs.4,46,000-00 SCCH-18 20 MVC No.893/2023 to disability
6. Loss of Amenities Rs. 25,000-00
7.Future medical expenses Nil Total Rs.6,05,530-00
40. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.6,05,530/- (Rupees six lakhs five thousand five hundred and thirty only), along with interest @ 6% per annum, as per the proposition laid down by the Honourable High court of Karnataka in, MFA No.103557/2016, between Sri Ram General Insurance Company Limited V/S. Lakshmi And Others dated. 20.03.2018. And MFA No.30131/2019 dated.12.5.2020, from the date of the petition, till the realization of the award amount.
LIABILITY:
41. As regards the liability is concerned, it is the assertion of the petitioner that, due to actionable negligence on the part of the riding of the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA--66-K-3859 the alleged accident had taken place. The evidence given by the petitioner in connection with the issue No.1, remained unshaken. As such, I am of the view that, the SCCH-18 21 MVC No.893/2023 respondent No.1 being the owner and the respondent No.2 being the insurance company of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
42. The respondent No.2 has contended in its written statement that as on the date of accident the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-66-K-3859 had no valid and effective driving licence to ride the same. Thereby respondent No.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As such, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. To substantiate the same, respondent No.2 has examined its Legal Manager as RW1. He has reiterated the averments made in the written statement. He has placed authorisation letter & policy copy as per Ex.R1 & Ex.R2.
43. In this regard, on going through the charge sheet submitted by the investigation officer, relevant provision has been inserted stating that, at the time of accident the rider of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving license. To disprove the contents SCCH-18 22 MVC No.893/2023 of the charge sheet and to show that, the rider had valid D.L. no supportive evidence is available on record to impeach the recitals of Ex.P7. Moreover, respondent No.1 being the owner of the motor cycle has appeared through its counsel but not filed his written statement and not stepped into witness box. Hence, it is crystal clear that, rider of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to ride the said vehicle at the time of accident and he has violated the terms and conditions of the policy.
44. At this stage, it is relevant to note herein, the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down in the following cases.
1). 2004 (3) SCC 297 between National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Swaran Singh & Others In the aforesaid case, with due discussions the Hon'ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that, the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provision of Section 149(2) R/W Subsection 7, as interpreted by the court. And the Tribunal can direct the insurer liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation amount, which has been compared to pay to the third party under the award of the Tribunal. In one word it is necessary to note that, SCCH-18 23 MVC No.893/2023 through this authority, highlighted about the concept pay and recovery.
2) 2018 SCC 208 between Pappu & Others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Another In the aforesaid case it was observed that, where on adjudication of claim under the Act, the Tribunal arise at a conclusion that, the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with law with the provision of Section 149(2) R/W Sub-section 7, the Tribunal can direct that, the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amount which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the Tribunal. In the aforesaid case also, highlighted about the principle of pay and recovery.
45. On going through the supra decisions, it is to be noted that to protect the interest of third party, the principle of pay and recovery is applied. Apart from this, as per the assertion of the petitioner, insurance policy was valid from 13.2.2021 to 12.2.2022. The accident had occurred on 25.1.2022. The said fact has not been denied by the respondent company by placing the insurance policy as per Ex.R2.
46. In the light of the discussion held above, I am of the view that, though the respondent No.1 being the SCCH-18 24 MVC No.893/2023 owner of the offending vehicle, cannot escape from his liability to pay compensation to the petitioner, in view of violation of terms and conditions of the policy. But, to protect the interest of the petitioner, it is necessary to direct the respondent No.2-insurance company to pay compensation to the petitioner and thereafter to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, through due process of law. Accordingly, I am answering the issue No.2 partly in the Affirmative. ISSUE No.3:
47. In view of my due discussions on Issue Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R
The claim petition filed by the
petitioner U/S 166 of MV Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.6,05,530/- (Rupees six lakhs five thousand five hundred and thirty only), along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
SCCH-18 25 MVC No.893/2023The respondent No.2-Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization within two months from the date of this order, thereafter recover the same from the respondent No.1.
After deposit of the compensation
amount together with interest, 40% is
directed to be deposited in any
Nationalized/Scheduled bank in F.D for a period of 3 years and remaining 60% shall be released to the petitioner through due process of law.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 21st day of January 2026).
(DHANESH MUGALI) III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER MACT & ACJM, BENGALURU.
SCCH-18 26 MVC No.893/2023ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
PW1 Sri. Yuvaraj S.K. PW2 Dr. Madhura .M. Khanapur
List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex.P1 : FIR Ex.P2 : First information statement Ex.P3 : Spot Mahazar Ex.P4 : Spot sketch Ex.P5 : IMV report Ex.P6 : Wound certificate Ex.P7 : Charge sheet Ex.P8 : Discharge summary Ex.P9 : Notarized copy of Aadhar Card Ex.P10 : Notarized copy of D.L.Card Ex.P11 : Notarized copy of R.C. Card Ex.P12 : E.R. record copy Ex.P13 & : Two OPD Books 14 Ex.P15 : Medical bills Ex.P16 : Out patient record
List of witnesses examined on respondents' side:
RW1 Sri. Santhosh SCCH-18 27 MVC No.893/2023 List of documents exhibited on respondents' side:
Ex.R1 : Authroization letter
Ex.R2 : Copy of Insurance policy
III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
MEMBER MACT & ACJM,
BENGALURU.