Bangalore District Court
Nithin.N vs Raghu.R on 9 April, 2026
KABC020123542023
BEFORE THE COURT OF I ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM &
MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
(SCCH-11)
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL - 2026
PRESENT: SRI.NARENDRA.B.R., B.Sc, L.L.B.
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM
& MEMBER - MACT
MVC No.2758/2023
PETITIONER:
Sri.Nithin.N.,
Aged about 19 years,
S/o.Narasimha.A.,
No.507, 2nd Phase,
Near Diwakar Hospital,
Ragigudda Slum,
Bengaluru - 560 078.
(By Sri.Basavaraj.B.Adavani, Adv.)
//Versus//
RESPONDENTS:
1. Sri.Raghu.R.,
S/o.Late Raman,
R/o.Lakshmayyana Doddy,
Cowdalli Post - 571444,
Kollegal Taluk,
Chamarajanagar.
SCCH-11 2 MVC.No.2758/2023
Owner of TATA ACE Bearing
Regn.No.KA-10-A-5972.
2. Reliance General Insurance
Company Limited, Unnati Arcade,
No.5/111 & 6/112, 1st Floor,
1st Block, 1st Main,
Dr.Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru - 560010.
Insurer of TATA ACE Bearing
Regn.No.KA-10-A-5972, policy
No.920222223340032924 valid
from 20.04.2022 to 19.04.2023.
(R1 - Exparte)
(R2 - By Smt.Suma, Adv.)
J U D G M E N T
This claim petition is filed by the petitioner claiming compensation of ₹.15,00,000/- with interest from the date of petition till its realization for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief:-
On 28.03.2023 at about 01.30 a.m., the petitioner was riding his Activa Honda Motor Cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-05-JQ-5083, while going from Konanakunte SCCH-11 3 MVC.No.2758/2023 side to Jaraganahalli, TATA ACE bearing Regn.No.KA- 10-A-5972 has been negligently parked in front of Popular Bajaj Service Station without giving any indication or parking light or barricade in front of Pillar No.134, due to which the petitioner dashed to the said Tata Ace and fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, the petitioner was shifted to Aster Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient and spent a sum of ₹.5,00,000/- towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charges.
Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and was working in a Private firm and was earning ₹.25,000/- per month. Due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner suffered permanent disability. The accident occurred only due to negligent parking of TATA Ace by its driver. The respondents, being the owner and insurer of the SCCH-11 4 MVC.No.2758/2023 offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
3. In-spite of service of notice, respondent No.1 did not appear before the tribunal and hence, he has been placed ex-parte. The respondent No.2 appeared before the tribunal through the counsel and filed the written statement.
4. In the Written Statement, the respondent No.2 has denied the contents of claim petition specifically and categorically. The respondent No.2 also denied age, occupation and income of petitioner as well as place, time and manner of accident. Further respondent No.2 contended that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts and same is liable to be dismissed. Further in the wound certificate issued by ESI Medical College, Rajajinagar, the history of RTA is mentioned as "fall from bike when another two SCCH-11 5 MVC.No.2758/2023 wheeler hit to his bike". Further it clearly goes to show that the Tata Ace vehicle was not at all involved in the alleged accident. Further respondent No.2 admitted the aspect of issue of policy to Tata Ace and contended that the liability, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions of policy. Further contended that the 1st respondent, the alleged owner of the TATA Ace, has not immediately reported the occurrence of the accident. Further the petitioner had registered false case against the driver of Tata Ace. In wound certificate, there is mention about fall from bike when another two wheeler hit his bike. It clearly goes to show that the Tata Ace has not been involved in the alleged accident. Further the jurisdictional police also, without conducting proper investigation and not collecting the medical records, have registered the case against the driver of offending vehicle by SCCH-11 6 MVC.No.2758/2023 incorporating the section 283 and 337 of IPC. Further the said vehicle was being driven by its driver without possessing valid and effective driving license and the vehicle does not have valid FC and permit as on the date of alleged accident. Further the injured had also contributed to the cause of alleged accident and was guilty of contributory negligence and also not having DL to ride the bike. Further the Tata Ace has not been involved in the alleged accident. The petitioner was not wearing the helmet while riding the bike and driving the vehicle without DL and policy. The amount claimed by the petitioner is highly exorbitant. Hence, prayed for dismissal of petition.
5. On the basis of above pleadings, this tribunal has framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether petitioner proves that, he SCCH-11 7 MVC.No.2758/2023 sustained grievous injuries in the accident that occurred on 28.03.2023 at about 01.30 a.m., near Metro Pillar No.134, Popular Bajaj Service Station, Kanakapura Main Road, Bengaluru, while he was riding his Activa Honda Motor Cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-05-JQ-5083, due to the rash and negligent parking of Tata Ace bearing Regn.No.KA-10-A-
5972 by its rider?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed in the claim petition? If so, what is the quantum of compensation and from whom?
3. What order or award?
6. In order to prove the contention of the petition, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1, got examined Deputy Manager, Medical Records Department at Aster RV Hospital as PW.2, Dr.Girish.G., working as Associate Professor, at Dept of Maxillofacial Surgery as PW.3 and Medical Record Officer at Astra Hospital examined as PW.4 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 and closed evidence of his side. On the other hand, the SCCH-11 8 MVC.No.2758/2023 respondent insurance company examined its Deputy Manager as RW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.R.1 & 2 and closed his side of evidence.
7. Heard the arguments of both the side and perused the materials available on record.
8. Findings of this tribunal on the above issues are under:-
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative;
Issue No.2: Partly in the Affirmative; Issue No.3: As per final order for the following:-
-:REASONS:-
9. Issue No.1:- The petitioner contended that on 28.03.2023 at about 01.30 a.m., accident occurred near Metro Pillar No.134, Popular Bajaj Service Station, Kanakapura Main Road, Bengaluru, while he was riding his Activa Honda Motor Cycle bearing SCCH-11 9 MVC.No.2758/2023 Regn.No.KA-05-JQ-5083, due to negligent parking of Tata Ace bearing Regn.No.KA-10-A-5972 by its rider in which he sustained grievous injuries.
10. Further, in order to prove accident, the petitioner has produced Ex.P.2, first information statement. On perusal of Ex.P.2, first information statement, it discloses that the petitioner has lodged complaint with police on 28.03.2023. The police registered the FIR as per Ex.P.1 for the offence punishable U/s.283, 337 of IPC. In the first information statement as well as FIR, the accident is stated to have been caused due to negligent parking of offending vehicle. The accident is stated to have been caused due to negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle. Ex.P.1 discloses the aspect of registration of FIR against the driver of offending Tata Ace.
SCCH-11 10 MVC.No.2758/2023
11. The petitioner also furnished spot mahazar and spot sketch, which are marked as Ex.P.3 & 4. The said documents disclose that the police visited the place of incident after registration of FIR and the place of incident is described in the said documents. In the mahazar also, the accident is stated to have been caused due to negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle. The respondents not furnished satisfactory materials in order to show that the facts at the place of accident, as described in the mahazar and sketch, are contrary to actual facts.
12. Ex.P.5 is the Wound certificate which discloses the aspect of injuries sustained by petitioner in the road traffic accident. Ex.P.6 is the IMV Reports, wherein damages caused to both the vehicles are mentioned. The vehicle will be inspected by the concerned after seizure of the same SCCH-11 11 MVC.No.2758/2023 by the police. The IMV report discloses the aspect of damages being caused to the offending vehicle. If the offending vehicle has not been involved in the accident, then the driver or owner of offending vehicle could have furnished explanation regarding the manner in which the vehicle got damaged. No explanation is forthcoming from the materials on record. The said document discloses the aspect of involvement of offending vehicle in the cause of accident.
13. The I.O., after completion of investigation, filed the final report against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable U/s.283, 338 of IPC as per Ex.P.7. In the final report also, the accident is stated to have been caused due to negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle. The police filed the final report after detailed investigation. The driver or owner of SCCH-11 12 MVC.No.2758/2023 offending vehicle does not appear to have questioned the correctness of the investigation. No satisfactory materials are placed by the respondents to show that the investigation is not conducted in proper manner. The driver or owner of offending vehicle does not appear to have challenged or questioned the FIR or final report filed by the police. In the FIR as well as final report, the accident is stated to have been caused due to negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle which aspect does not appear to have been challenged in any manner. The respondents not furnished any satisfactory materials in order to rebut or controvert the documents furnished by petitioner related to negligence of driver of offending vehicle. PW.1 is cross examined on behalf of respondents and in the cross examination also, nothing to disprove or disbelieve the contention of SCCH-11 13 MVC.No.2758/2023 petitioners could be elicited. No satisfactory materials are being placed before the Tribunal to disprove the contention of petitioners pertaining to the aspect of negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle in the cause of accident.
14. The respondent No.2 specifically contended that the vehicle insured by them has not been involved in the accident and the vehicle has been falsely implicated to get the compensation. In order to substantiate their contention, the respondent No.2 relied on the entries in wound certificate and discharge summary. In the wound certificate as well as discharge summary, the history of accident is mentioned as fall from another two wheeler hit to the bike. The entries in wound certificate as well as discharge summary discloses the aspect of involvement of two motor cycles including the motor cycle in which the petitioner is stated to be SCCH-11 14 MVC.No.2758/2023 traveling. Apart from the said documents, no other documents are placed before the tribunal to indicate the aspect of involvement of two motor cycles in the occurrence of accident. As per the records placed before the tribunal, only one motor cycle and Tata Ace is stated to have been involved in the accident. In FIR as well as first information statement, there is no mention about involvement of another motor cycle apart from the motor cycle of the petitioner and TATA Ace. The entries in wound certificate as well as the discharge summary are not substantiated by any other materials. The aspect regarding involvement of another motor vehicle is not forthcoming from the materials placed on record. In the mahazar as well as sketch also the involvement of another motor vehicle has not been mentioned. Except the entries in discharge summary and wound certificate, other materials placed before the SCCH-11 15 MVC.No.2758/2023 tribunal do not disclose the aspect of involvement of another motor cycle in the occurrence of accident. The materials on record discloses the involvement of the motor cycle in which the petitioner is stated to be traveling and offending Tata Ace. Except said vehicles, no other vehicle is stated to have been involved in the occurrence of accident. The entries in wound certificate and discharge summary cannot be considered as sufficient to hold that the accident occurred between two motor cycles and the offending Tata Ace has not been involved in the cause of accident.
15. Further, the petitioner furnished the IMV Report, which is marked as Ex.P.6. The IMV Report pertaining to TATA Ace vehicle discloses the aspect of damage being caused to rear side bumper. As per the version of petitioner, he stated to have collided to the TATA Ace which was parked SCCH-11 16 MVC.No.2758/2023 negligently by the side of the road. The two wheeler ridden by petitioner is stated to have collided to the back side of the TATA Ace vehicle and said aspect is substantiated by the entries in IMV Report. As per IMV Report pertaining to TATA Ace vehicle, the rear side bumper is stated to have been damaged and said aspect substantiates the contention of petitioner about involvement of the vehicle in the cause of accident. If the vehicle has not been involved in the cause of accident, then the damages, as mentioned in IMV Report, has not been occurred to the vehicle. Apart from that, the driver or owner of the offending vehicle could have provided satisfactory explanation regarding the manner in which the vehicle got damaged, if the same has not been involved in the accident. The respondent No.1, the owner of the offending vehicle, neither appeared nor placed satisfactory materials to deny or SCCH-11 17 MVC.No.2758/2023 disprove the aspect of involvement of offending vehicle in the cause of accident. The respondent No.1, being the owner of the vehicle, is considered as a proper person to state about the involvement of vehicle and negligence on the part of the driver in the cause of accident. But, the respondent No.1 not resisted the claim of the petitioner in any manner. The IMV Report furnished by the petitioner clearly indicates the aspect of involvement of offending vehicle in the cause of accident. No satisfactory materials are placed before the tribunal to contradict or rebut the IMV Report furnished by the petitioner. The said document clearly discloses the aspect of involvement of offending vehicle in the cause of accident. No explanation has been provided by respondent No.1 regarding the manner in which the damages as mentioned in Ex.P.6, has been caused to the vehicle.
SCCH-11 18 MVC.No.2758/2023
16. Further, the petitioner furnished the MLC Extract which is marked as Ex.P.14. In the said document, the history of accident is mentioned as "hit to two wheeler while riding two wheeler". The said document is entered on the date of accident itself. The accident occurred on 28.03.2023 and MLC has been prepared on the same date. In MLC Extract, it is clearly mentioned that two wheeler hit the four wheeler due to which the accident is stated to have occurred. The said document is prior in time compared to wound certificate and discharge summary. The MLC register is the document which is the first medical document related to the accident cases. The entries in MLC Extract clearly indicates the aspect of occurrence of accident between the two wheeler and four wheeler. The entries in wound certificate and discharge summary is negated by entries in MLC extract. The respondents not furnished any SCCH-11 19 MVC.No.2758/2023 satisfactory materials to show the aspect of non involvement of offending vehicle in the cause of accident. The respondent No.2 relied on the entries in wound certificate and discharge summary and contended that the accident occurred due to hit by two wheeler in which the petitioner was traveling. If that aspect is taken into consideration, then the same could have been mentioned in MLC Extract also which is first medical record wherein the aspect of accident is entered. In Ex.P.15, there is no mention about involvement of another two wheeler apart from the two wheeler in which the petitioner was traveling. The MLC extract does not disclose the aspect of involvement of two motor cycles in the cause of accident. As such, the documents furnished by petitioner substantiate his contention. The contention of respondent No.2 is not substantiated by cogent and corroborative materials. The SCCH-11 20 MVC.No.2758/2023 respondent No.2 not furnished satisfactory materials in order to substantiate their contention and also to substantiate the entries in wound certificate and discharge summary on which they relied. Except said documents, the other materials placed before the tribunal clearly indicates the aspect of involvement of offending vehicle in the cause of accident. As such, the contention raised by respondent No.2 regarding non involvement of offending vehicle is not sustainable.
17. On the other hand, the respondent insurance company examined its Deputy Manager as RW.1 and got marked one document at Ex.R.1 & 2. The evidence of RW.1 is not of much assistance to the respondents in disproving the contentions of petitioner. The evidence of RW.1 does not substantiate the contention of respondents related to accident and negligence on the part of driver of offending SCCH-11 21 MVC.No.2758/2023 vehicle. RW.1 is not an eye witness to the accident and as such, their evidence is not of much assistance to disprove the aspect of accident and negligence of driver of offending vehicle. Further, respondent No.1, not contested the claim of petitioner in any manner. The respondent No.1 could have contested the matter and examined the driver of offending vehicle in order to contradict or rebut the contention of petitioner. Respondent No.1 neither examined any witness nor furnished materials to disprove or rebut the contention of petitioner. The evidence of RW.1 is not of much assistance to the respondents in disproving or rebutting the contentions of petitioner.
18. The respondents not placed satisfactory materials before the tribunal to disprove case of petitioner. In the absence of sufficient and satisfactory materials to the contrary, the SCCH-11 22 MVC.No.2758/2023 documents furnished by the petitioner are to be considered for ascertaining the aspect of negligence. The respondent not furnished any materials to show that there is no negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle in the cause of accident. On perusal of record, it discloses that accident was caused due to negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle. Under these circumstances, relying upon the oral evidence of PW.1 coupled with the documents produced as per Exs.P.1 to P.7, this tribunal is of the opinion that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent parking of Tata Ace bearing Regn.No.KA-10-A-5972 by its driver and same has resulted in grievous injuries to the Petitioner. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
19. Issue No.2: The petitioner succeeded in establishing that the accident was caused due to SCCH-11 23 MVC.No.2758/2023 negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle. As Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative, the petitioner is entitled for compensation. The Tribunal has to look into several factors like injury, pain and suffering sustained by the petitioner and amount spent by the petitioner towards medical expenses, food and extra nourishment and medical attendants, conveyance, loss of income during treatment, disability, loss of amenities etc., in order to assess the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled.
i) Towards injury, pain and suffering:- The petitioner contended that due to accident he sustained injuries and underwent surgery and later discharged with an advice to take follow up treatment. In order to prove the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner produced Wound certificate issued by Medical College, PGIMSR and SCCH-11 24 MVC.No.2758/2023 Model Hospital marked at Ex.P.5. The said document discloses the aspect of injuries sustained by petitioner and that the injuries are grievous in nature. The discharge summary furnished before the Tribunal discloses the aspect of availing treatment by petitioner for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Further, the petitioner examined Dr.Girish.G as PW.3 and got marked Ex.P12 & 13 documents. PW.3/doctor deposed that he examined the petitioner for assessment of permanent physical disability and assessed the disability to the whole body at 10%. On consideration of the materials placed before the Tribunal, compensation of ₹.50,000/- appears just and reasonable towards Pain and Suffering.
(ii) Towards Medical Expenses:- The petitioner has not produced any medical bills to show that he has taken treatment in the hospital. The petitioner SCCH-11 25 MVC.No.2758/2023 not furnished any materials in order to show the expenses incurred by him for the treatment of injuries. In the absence of satisfactory materials, the petitioner cannot be considered to be entitled to compensation towards medical expenses. As such petitioner is not entitled for compensation towards medical expenses.
(iii) Towards food, extra nourishment and medical attendant charges:- On perusal of records, the accident occurred on 28.03.2023 and the petitioner took treatment as an inpatient in the hospital. On perusal of materials on record, the petitioner appears to have admitted as an inpatient at Hospital pertaining to the injuries sustained by him and availed treatment as an inpatient. So, during the time of treatment the petitioner might have required good food and extra nourishment. PW.3/Doctor has produced Ex.P.8, Discharge Summary issued by Aster SCCH-11 26 MVC.No.2758/2023 RV Hospital, which discloses the aspect of availing treatment by petitioner as an inpatient from 28.03.2023 to 03.04.2023 i.e., for a period of 07 days. Considering the said facts, the Tribunal is of the view that compensation of ₹.500/- per day for 07 days to a sum of ₹.3,500/- appears just and reasonable towards food, extra nourishment and medical attendant.
(iv) Towards Conveyance:-
The petitioner is the resident of Ragigudda Slum, Bengaluru and he has admitted to hospital for treatment. In order to prove the said aspect, the petitioner has produced discharge summary marked at Ex.P.8. The petitioner might have incurred expenses for conveyance during the period of treatment. Considering the injuries sustained and facts of the case, the tribunal is of view that the compensation of ₹.10,000/- appears just and proper towards SCCH-11 27 MVC.No.2758/2023 conveyance charges.
(v) Towards loss of income during treatment:-
The petitioner contended that he was working in a private firm and earning a sum of ₹.25,000/- per month. In order to prove the income, the petitioner has not produced any documents. The petitioner not furnished materials to show that he was earning ₹.25,000/- per month. No materials are furnished by petitioner in order to substantiate his contention that he is earning ₹.25,000/- per month. The petitioner not furnished any satisfactory materials in order to substantiate his contention regarding occupation and income. In the absence of satisfactory materials, notional income is to be taken into consideration. By considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the notional income of the petitioner is considered as ₹.16,000/-. On perusal of record, it appears that petitioner might SCCH-11 28 MVC.No.2758/2023 have not attended his work for some time due to accidental injuries. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for ₹.20,000/- towards loss of income during treatment.
(vi) Towards Loss of future earning capacity:-
The petitioner has contended that due to accident, he was admitted as an inpatient at Hospital and sustained permanent disablement. The petitioner also examined Dr.Girish.G working as Associate Professor at Dept. of Maxillofacial Surgery as PW.3. PW.3/Doctor examined the patient clinically and radiologically to assess disabilities. The doctor deposed that petitioner has sustained cut laceration wound over left chin, frontal fracture and final diagnosed frontal bone fracture and soft tissue injury over left chin and later discharged. The doctor has assessed the disability to the whole body at 10%. In order to SCCH-11 29 MVC.No.2758/2023 prove the disability, the doctor has produced OPD record and X-rays marked at Ex.P.12 & 13. PW.3, in the chief examination, deposed that petitioner complains of pain over forehead and over backside of right eye, difficulty in chewing the food and to speak, loss of sensation over left chin region and forehead and frequent headaches. PW.3 further deposed that on examination, tenderness over frontal region, paresthesia over left chin region and frontal region (conducted 2 point cotton test) and restricted mouth opening (25mm) due to restricted lower lip limited movement due to chin fibrosis is noticed. The X-ray shows implants in situ. The petitioner also examined Deputy Manager, Medical Records Department in Aster RV Hospital as PW.2 and Medical Record Officer examined as PW.4 and got marked documents at Ex.P.10 & 11, 14 & 15 i.e., authorization letter, inpatient record and MLC SCCH-11 30 MVC.No.2758/2023 Register Extract. PW.3 not stated that the petitioner could not be able to do his routine activities in a normal way. No satisfactory materials are placed by the petitioner to show that the petitioner is unable to do any work at all. The injuries sustained by petitioner do not appear to cause much problem in doing his activities. The disability stated to have been caused to the petitioner does not appear to cause difficulties to the petitioner in performing his work or activities. As per the assertion of petitioner, he is stated to be working in a private firm. The petitioner has not furnished satisfactory materials to show the nature of work performed by him in the firm. No materials are placed before the Tribunal related to occupation of petitioner. As per the materials on record, the petitioner has sustained maxillofacial injuries which do not appear to incapacitate the petitioner SCCH-11 31 MVC.No.2758/2023 from doing his work or activities. The nature of injuries sustained by petitioner does not appear to cause impact on the work of petitioner. The accidental injuries do not appear to incapacitate the petitioner from doing his work and do not appear to cause impact on the earning capacity of petitioner. The materials on record are not sufficient to consider that the petitioner is not able to do his work due to the impact of accidental injuries and he is incapacitated from doing any work. The injuries sustained by petitioner do not appear to cause impact on the nature of work carried by petitioner and to the earning capacity of petitioner. The materials placed on record are not sufficient and satisfactory to consider that the petitioner will suffer loss in future income due to accidental injuries. As stated above, the petitioner not furnished satisfactory materials to show the SCCH-11 32 MVC.No.2758/2023 nature of work done by him at the private firm and as such, the accidental injuries are not considered to affect the earning and earning capacity of petitioner. The nature of injuries sustained by petitioner does not appear to deprive the petitioner in doing or performing his work and activities. The petitioner not furnished satisfactory materials to show that the accidental injuries caused loss in his earnings and earning capacity. The materials on record are not sufficient to consider that the petitioner will be having loss in his income and earning capacity due to accidental injuries. As the injuries do not appear to cause impact on the nature of work of petitioner, the petitioner cannot considered to be entitled to compensation under the head future loss of income. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to compensation under the head of future loss of income.SCCH-11 33 MVC.No.2758/2023
(vii) Deprivation of Future Amenities:- The doctor has opined that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and he is unable to do his day-
today activities as earlier. By considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is of the view that compensation of ₹.20,000/- appears just and reasonable under the head deprivation of future amenities.
(viii) Towards Future Medical Expenses:
The doctor/PW.3 has opined that the petitioner has to undergo surgery under general anesthesia for implant removal and scar revision for which he has not given any estimation. No materials are placed to ascertain the actual expenses of future surgery. By considering the facts and circumstances of the case ₹.30,000/- appears just and reasonable under the head deprivation of future medical expenses.
20. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for SCCH-11 34 MVC.No.2758/2023 compensation as follows:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
a. Towards injury pain and ₹.50,000/-
suffering
c. Towards food and extra ₹.3,500/-
nourishment and medical
attendant
d. Towards conveyance ₹.10,000/-
e. Towards loss of income ₹.20,000/-
during treatment
f. Deprivation of future ₹.20,000/-
amenities
g. Towards Future medical ₹.30,000/-
expenses
Total compensation ₹.1,33,500/
-
The petitioner is entitled for total compensation of ₹.1,33,500/-.
21. In view of ratio and dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA.No.100090 of 2014 C/w. MFA.No.25107 of 2013 between Vijay Ishwar Jadhav and others Vs. Ulrich Belchior Fernandes and another, the petitioner is entitled for interest @ SCCH-11 35 MVC.No.2758/2023 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
22. The petitioner has filed petition against the respondents No.1 and 2. It is already held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent parking of Tata Ace bearing Regn.No.KA-10-A-5972 by its driver. So, the respondent No.1 & 2, being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, Issue No.2 answered Partly in the Affirmative.
23. Issue No.3:- In view of the findings given on the above said issues, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following:
O R D E R The claim petition filed by the petitioner Under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.SCCH-11 36 MVC.No.2758/2023
The petitioner is entitled for compensation amount of ₹.1,33,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Three Thousand Five Hundred only) with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.
Respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to petitioner. Respondent No.2 being the
insurer is primarily liable to deposit the said compensation amount within a period of two months from the date of award.
Entire compensation amount shall be released in favour of petitioner as amount is meager one.
After deposit of compensation amount with interest thereon disburse amount as mentioned above as per guidelines laid down by Hon'ble High Court in MFA.No.2509/2019 (ECA) and as per General Circular No.2/2019 dated 19.8.2019.
The petitioner hereby directed to produce particulars of his Bank Account, SCCH-11 37 MVC.No.2758/2023 with name of Bank, IFSC Code, Account Number with copy of First Page of Bank Pass Book which contained compulsorily photographs of petitioner, which is duly attested by concerned Bank. Further petitioner shall produce PAN Card/Aadhaar Card.
In case of deposit of awarded amount with interest thereon by respondent, the petitioner is entitled to receive amount as mentioned above after expiry of period provided for filing an appeal.
The Advocate fee is fixed at ₹.1,000/-. Draw up award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer over computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 09th day of April, 2026.) (NARENDRA.B.R) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM & MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-11 38 MVC.No.2758/2023 A N N E X U R E LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
PW.1 Mr.Nithin PW.2 Sri.Jagan PW.3 Dr.Girish.G PW.4 Sri.Praveena.C DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS: Ex.P1 FIR Ex.P2 Complaint Ex.P3 Spot Panchanama Ex.P4 Spot Sketch Ex.P5 Wound Certificate Ex.P6 IMV Reports Ex.P7 Charge Sheet Ex.P8 Discharge Summary Ex.P9 Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.P10 Authorization letter Ex.P11 Inpatient record Ex.P12 OPD Record Ex.P13 X-ray Ex.P14 Authorization letter Ex.P15 MLC Register Extract SCCH-11 39 MVC.No.2758/2023 LIST OF WITNESSES ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: RW.1 Kum.Thirshi LIST OF DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: Ex.R.1 Authorization letter Ex.R.2 Copy of Insurance Policy (NARENDRA.B.R.) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM & MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU Digitally signed by NARENDRA B NARENDRA R BR Date: 2026.05.07 16:00:42 +0530