Bangalore District Court
Muniraju vs Saraswathi on 6 November, 2025
KABC020118352024
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU.
(SCCH-24)
Presided Over by Smt. Roopashri, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACJM,
MEMBER - MACT,
BENGALURU.
Dated:- This the 6th day of November 2025.
M.V.C. No.1814 of 2024
PETITIONER:
Mr.MUNIRAJU,
S/o Hanumanthabhovi,
aged about 54 years,
R/at No.105/1,
Kempaiahnapalya,
Ramanagara.562109.
(By Sri.K.P.Mahendra, Advocate)
- Vs -
RESPONDENT:
1. Smt. SARASWATHI
W/o Lingaraju .M.
R/at No.93, 3rd Main,
Nagarabhavi road,
Maruthi Nagar,
Bengaluru North,
Bengaluru -560072.
SCCH-24 2 MVC 1814/2024
(RC Owner of the Motor cycle
bearing No.KA-05-LU-9221)
(Ex-parte)
2. GO DIGIT GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
TP Hub, consulate -1, 2nd floor,
Richmond road,
(Near Richmond circle)
Shanthala Nagar, Ashok Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560025.
(Policy No.D107579835
Date of valid from 30-08-2023 to 25-06-2028.)
(By Sri.V.Shrihari Naidu Advocate)
*****
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:-
That on 20-12-2023 at about 8-05 a.m, the petitioner was riding the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA- 42/R-3191 along with his wife as pillion rider, on Harohalli - Bidadi road, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk and when they reached near Medanahalli village, SCCH-24 3 MVC 1814/2024 at that time, the rider of motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA- 05-LU-9221 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's motor cycle, result of which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Subhash Medical Centre, Bidadi, wherein first aid treatment was given and then he was shifted to Rajarajeshwari Medical college and Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein admitted as an inpatient. So far, the petitioner has spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses and incidental charges .
3. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy. He was Coolie by profession and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Due to the permanent disability, petitioner is not in a position to do the said work. He has suffered pain and sufferings, permanent disability, loss of income, loss of future income and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
4. In spite of service of notice, the respondent No.1
- the R.C. owner of motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-05- LU-9221 has remained absent. Hence he was placed ex- parte.
5. The respondent no.2 / the Insurer of motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-05-LU-9221 has filed written SCCH-24 4 MVC 1814/2024 statement and admitted the coverage of insurance policy and the liability if any subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. The respondent no.2 has contended that insured motorcycle was not at all involved in the accident, that the rider of offending motorcycle was not having valid and effective driving licence and the said vehicle was not having RC and FC to ply the vehicle on the road. The jurisdiction police after due investigation have filed the charge sheet against the rider of the insured motorcycle u/Sec. 181 of IMV Act, stating that the A1-rider of the said motorcycle did not have valid and effective driving license. It is further contended that the alleged accident was occurred due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-42-R-3191 who was not holding valid license to ride the motorcycle and he was not wearing the helmet.
6. In order to substantiate the case, the petitioner got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. On the other hand, the respondent no.2 has examined its Legal Officer as RW.1 and got marked documents as per Ex.R1 to Ex.R4.
SCCH-24 5 MVC 1814/20247. Heard the arguments and perused the entire materials placed on record.
8. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that he has sustained injuries on account of road traffic accident on 20-12-2023 at about 08- 05 a.m., on Harohalli Bidadi road, Medanahalli village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramangara Taluk, due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-
05-LU-9221 ?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? from whom?
3. What order or award?
9. My findings on the above 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;SCCH-24 6 MVC 1814/2024
REASONS
10. Issue No.1:- In order to explain the actionable negligence of the rider of the offending vehicle, PW1 has filed his affidavit explaining the vivid picture of the accident that took place on 20-12-2023 at about 8-05 a.m, when the petitioner was riding the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-42/R-3191 along with his wife as pillion rider, on Harohalli - Bidadi road, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk and when they reached near Medanahalli village at that time, the rider of motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-05-LU-9221 (hereinafter called as offending vehicle) came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's motor cycle, result of which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. P.W.1 further deposed about the nature of injuries sustained, treatment taken and the amount spent for treatment etc.
11. In support of the claim and to prove the rash and negligent riding of offending vehicle by the rider, P.W.1 has relied upon Ex.P1 to Ex.P6, which are the police records such as F.I.R with Complaint, Spot Mahazar, Wound certificate, Notice U/sec.133 of IMV Act and reply given thereon, IMV report, Charge sheet, etc., SCCH-24 7 MVC 1814/2024
12. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Smt.Vijayalakshmi case has been registered against the rider of offending vehicle in Crime No.404/2023 of Bidadi Police Station for the offence punishable under section 279 and 337 of IPC. The investigation officer after completion of investigation has filed charge sheet against the rider of offending vehicle for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337 of IPC and Section 181 of M.V. Act.
13. The respondent no.2 who is the contesting party has not disputed the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident. It is true that they have disputed the manner of accident stated by the petitioner but they have not stated the way in which accident in question has occurred if not in the manner stated by the petitioner. The respondent no.2 even has not examined the driver of the offending vehicle. The respondent no.1 who is the owner of the offending vehicle has uncontested the case and thereby not denied either involvement of offending vehicle in the accident or the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. There is no contra evidence led by the respondents to disprove the contention taken by the SCCH-24 8 MVC 1814/2024 petitioner. Further admittedly case has been registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and after investigation charge sheet was filed against him. Neither the respondent no.1 nor the driver of the offending vehicle has challenged the charge sheet. Further if the spot mahazar is perused, at the time of accident the petitioner along with his wife were proceeding from Bidadi towards Horahalli and the offending vehicle which came from Horahalli towards Bidadi ie., from opposite direction hit to the vehicle of the petitioner which was proceeding on the edge of the road. As per the spot mahazar the width of the road at the spot of accident is nearly 24 feet. The accident in question has occurred at a distance of nearly 6 feet from the Northern edge of the road towards southern side. Hence, topography of the scene of occurrence itself clearly proves the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, Issue no.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
14. Issue No.2:- P.W.1 has given evidence to the effect of his sustained severe injuries. The petitioner has produced wound certificate which is marked at Ex.P3. On going through the medical document, it reveals that petitioner has sustained simple injuries. The petitioner SCCH-24 9 MVC 1814/2024 has sustained skin abrasion right infra orbit to maxillary region.
15. The petitioner has stated that he has taken treatment at Rajarajeshwari Medial College and Hospital, Bengaluru wherein admitted as an inpatient. The petitioner has not produced discharge summary. The petitioner has not examined the medical officer who has given treatment to him and no evidence on record to say that petitioner has suffered permanent disability. All the medical bills produced by the petitioner is dated 20-12- 2023 ie., the date of accident. Since petitioner has not produced discharge summary and there is no document to prove that he has taken treatment as an inpatient it has to be presumed that petitioner has taken treatment as outpatient.
16. It is submitted by the petitioner that he was collie by profession and was earning sum of Rs.30,000/- per month and that due to the accident it could not possible to do the said work and that on account of the injuries sustained by him he is getting pain every now and then which incapacitated him from doing the work as before the accident.
SCCH-24 10 MVC 1814/202417. Now coming to the aspect of quantifying the compensation on different heads, the petitioner has suffered simple injury which made him to suffer pain and agony. Though the petitioner has stated that he took treatment as inpatient at Rajarajeshwari Hospital, but he has not produced discharge summary. So far as the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner are concerned, he has produced 15 medical bills for Rs.7,223/- as per Ex.P8. Further, the petitioner has not examined the Medical officer to prove that he has suffered any disability so as to get compensation under the head loss of future income. Here, the petitioner has taken treatment at out patient department. Hence having regard to the pain and agony endured and loss of comforts and amenities on account of sustaining such injuries and incidental expenses incurred by the petitioner, this Tribunal inclines to award global compensation of Rs.60,000/-.
18. As regarding liability is concerned, there is no dispute that offending vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent and policy was in force as on the date of accident.
SCCH-24 11 MVC 1814/202419. The learned counsel for respondent no.2 has submitted that as on the date of accident the rider of the offending vehicle had no driving license .
20. If the charge sheet is perused, the charge sheet was filed against the rider of offending vehicle for the offence u/Sec.181 of MV Act alleging that at the time of accident the rider was not holding valid driving license.
21. The petitioner has seriously refuted the said contention taken by the respondent no.2 and submitted that, as on the date of accident the rider was holding valid driving license to ride the motorcycle and respondent no.2 in order to escape from the liability now contending that the rider was not holding valid driving license and that the respondent no.2 has not issued notice to the owner/respondent no.1 to produce the driving license rider of the offending vehicle and they have not examined the RTO to prove that the rider was not holding valid driving license, hence merely on the bald statement of the respondent no.2 it cannot be concluded that rider was not holding valid driving license. It is further submitted that even if for any reason this court comes to the conclusion that the rider was not holding valid driving license then also at the SCCH-24 12 MVC 1814/2024 first instance the respondent no.2 has to pay the compensation and to recover the amount from the respondent no.1 under pay and recovery.
22. In order to prove that the rider was not holding valid driving license, the respondent no.2 has relied upon notice u/Sec. 133 of IMV Act and reply given thereto, charge sheet etc.,
23. It is true that respondent no.2 has not issued notice to the respondent no.1 to produce the driving license of the rider of offending vehicle and they have not examined the RTO to prove that as on the date of accident rider was not holding valid driving license but if the reply to the notice u/Sec.133 of MV Act is perused, the respondent no.1 being the owner has not furnished the particulars of the Driving license. If really, the driving license of the rider was valid and in force as on the date of accident, definitely the respondent no.1 in the Ex.P4 would have furnished the particulars of the driving license of the rider of offending vehicle. Further respondent no.1 on service of summons from the court has remained absent. If really driving license was in force, then nothing prevented the respondent no.1 from producing the driving license of the rider of the motorcycle. Further admittedly charge sheet was filed SCCH-24 13 MVC 1814/2024 against the rider of the motorcycle even for offence u/Sec. 181 of IMV Act. Hence, from the materials placed on record it can be said that as on the date of accident the rider was not holding the valid driving license.
24. Now at this juncture it would be relevant to refer here the judgment relied by the learned counsel for respondent no.2 reported in SLP (Civil) NO.11757/2025 between Mahaveer Vs. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., & Ors. In the said case, it was the defence of the Insurance company that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving license, hence they are not liable to pay the compensation. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "it is neither for the Insurance company to prove the negative nor is it possible to presume based only on the charge sheet filed, the entrustment of the vehicle by the owner, which charge is on the rash and negligent driving of the driver. What assumes significance is that despite the owner of the vehicle having been a party before the Tribunal, no evidence was given. The owner did not mount the witness box nor was any license produced either of the person who was driving the vehicle or the person to whom it was SCCH-24 14 MVC 1814/2024 entrusted. The owner thus failed to prove that the vehicle was entrusted to a person having valid license.
25. The learned counsel for respondent no 2 has submitted that subsequent to the amendment no pay and recovery can be ordered. It is submitted by the learned counsel that, the right to recover compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle flows from the proviso attached to sub section (4) of section 149 of M.V. Act 1988 has been omitted by Act of 2019 and therefore in case of a breach of policy, it is only the owner against whom award can be directly made and insurer is liable to be relieved from any liability to indemnify the owner.
26. The Learned counsel at this juncture has refereed the judgment in MFA No. 3297/2019 between Smt. Adilakshmammama & Ors., Vs. Sri Raju B & Anr., In the said case, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving license and the Hon'ble High Court exonerated the insurance company from the liability. In the said case, the accident in question has occurred prior to the amendment.
27. In MFA No. 6154/2019 (MV-D) between Hemalatha @ Hema @ Hemavathi and others vs. Bajaj SCCH-24 15 MVC 1814/2024 Allianz General Insurance Company LTD., and another. In the said case, the driver of offending vehicle was not at all holding driving license. In the given set of fact, the Hon'ble High Court by interpreting the observation made in the Swaran Singh's, Pappu's and Shamanna's case has observed that in the aforesaid three cases the driver of the offending vehicle had driving license but as on the date of accident the driving license was not in force hence pay and recover was ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme court against the insurance company, but in the case which was before the Hon'ble High Court, the rider/driver of the offending vehicle was not holding driving license at all. Hence, the Hon'ble High Court has ordered the owner of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation even without ordering for pay and recover.
28. Per contra the learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that even though accident in question has occurred subsequent to the amendment to MV Act but pay and recovery still be ordered against the Insurance Company.
29. At this juncture it would be relevant to refer here the order passed in First Appeal No. 1776/2024 between ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd., VS.
SCCH-24 16 MVC 1814/2024Smt. Arti Devi & 4 Ors., wherein it was observed that "mere omission of proviso attached to sub-section (4) of Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 after its replacement by Section 150 of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (32 of 2019), neither takes away the liability of the insurer to pay the claimants nor its right to recover the said amount from the owner. The law to this effect remains intact and unaffected by Amendment Act, 2019 and hence, insurer shall continue to indemnify the owner's risk in relation to accidents taking place after 01-04-2022 and "PAY & RECOVER"
principle will still continue to govern the field advancing social object of the Statute protecting third party interest. Principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and others, JT 2004 (1) SC 109 has not lost its significance and binding effect despite omission of proviso".
30. On perusal of the document, the accident in question has occurred on 20-12-2023 i.e, subsequent to the amendment dated 1-4-2022. Now at this juncture it would be relevant to refer here the judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No.3593-94 of 2024 between Rajesh Mitra and another V/s Karnani Properties Ltd., wherein SCCH-24 17 MVC 1814/2024 reference was made of case in Goutam Dey V/s Jyotsna Chetterji reported in 2012 Online Culcutta 642 wherein it was held that, "The New statute with touches upon the existing rights cannot be retrospective, without an express provision or necessary implication expressing the clear intent of the legislature". It was further observed that the enforcement of the new statute Ipso facto will not take away the rights already accrued under a repealed statute, unless this intention is reflected in the new statute.
31. Further in 2025 AFC 14110 between ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., V/s Smt.Arti Devi and 8 others decided on 31-01-2025, in the said appeal question of law raised is in the light of motor vehicles (amendment) Act 2019, wherein question is also raised as to whether mere omission of proviso attached to sub section (4) of section 149 of M.V. Act 1988 after its replacement by section 150 by amendment Act 2019 would mean that, the liability of the insurer to pay and its right to recover the amount from the owner has been taken away and does not survive in relation to accident occurring after 1-4-2022. The Hon'ble High court of judicature at Allahabad after elaborately discussing the purposive interpretation of statute, concept of pay and SCCH-24 18 MVC 1814/2024 recovery, leading authority has arrived at the conclusion that "Mere omission of proviso attached to sub section (4) of Section 149 of M.V. Act 1988 after its replacement by section 150 of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 2019, neither takes away the liability of the insurer to pay the claimants nor its right to recover the said amount from the owner. The law to this effect remains intact and un-effected by amendment Act 2019 and hence, insurer shall continue to indemnify the owner's risk in relation to accident taking place after 1-4-2022 and PAY AND RECOVER principle will still continue to govern the field advancing social object of the statute protecting third party interest. The principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Ins. Co. Ltd., V/s Swarna Singh and others has not lost its significance and binding effect despite omission of proviso".
32. Now at this juncture it would be relevant to refer here the judgment rendered by Hon'ble High Court Karnataka in MFA No. 202104/2024 disposed on 19-09- 2024 between the Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard Nibhaye Vadde General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Pooja & Ors., In the said case also the accident in question was SCCH-24 19 MVC 1814/2024 occurred subsequent to the amendment i.e., on 21-08- 2022 and in the said case also the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license to drive the vehicle. The Hon'ble High Court in the given set of fact has observed that even though there is violation of policy condition by the owner of the lorry but as MV Act is a benevolent legislation, the claimants cannot be deprived of the compensation so awarded. Therefore, the Hon'ble High Court has directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation, as the policy was in force as on the date of accident and Insurance company has to indemnify the said compensation so awarded and to recover the same from the owner of the lorry by executing the award against to him.
33. The learned counsel for petitioner has argued that, even if section 149 (4) of M.V. Act is omitted but there is no specific reference in the amendment to M.V. Act dated 1-4-2022 regarding deletion of the principle of pay and recovery.
34. In the present case it is proved by the respondent no.2 that as on the date of accident, the rider had no valid driving license to ride the vehicle and thereby there is breach of policy condition. But by relying SCCH-24 20 MVC 1814/2024 upon the observation made in the aforesaid judgments, this court orders the insurance company to pay the compensation amount and then to recover the amount from the owner under the principle of pay and recovery. Hence by fastening liability on the respondent no.2 this court directs the respondent no.2 to pay compensation to the petitioners along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of accident till the date of payment of entire amount and to recover the said amount from the Respondent no.1. Accordingly Issue No. 2 is answered.
35. Issue No.3: In the light of findings given on Point No.1 & 2, my finding on this Point is as per the following final order.
ORDER The claim petition filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation along with interest SCCH-24 21 MVC 1814/2024 within two months from the date of award and to recover the said amount from the respondent no.1/owner of the offending vehicle.
On deposit entire compensation amount is ordered to be released in favor of the petitioner on proper identification.
Advocates' fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 6th day of November, 2025.) (ROOPASHRI) XXII Addl. SCJ & ACJM Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witness examined on behalf of petitioner:-
Pw1 - Sri.Muniraju List of documents marked on behalf of petitioner:-
Ex.P1 - Copy of FIR with complaint Ex.P2 - Copy of Spot mahazar Ex.P3 - Copy of wound certificate SCCH-24 22 MVC 1814/2024 Ex.P4 - Copy of Notice U/sec.133 of MV Act and reply given thereon Ex.P5 - Copy of IMV Report Ex.P6 - Copy of Charge sheet Ex.P7 - Notarized copy f Aadhar card. (Compared with original and original is returned to the party) Ex.P8 - Medical bills, 15 in nos. Ex.P9 - Medical Prescription 11 in nos Ex.P10 - X- ray 1 in no
List of witness examined on behalf of respondents:-
RW.1 - Vallabha Bai Patil List of documents marked on behalf of respondents:-
Ex.R1 - Authorization letter
Ex.R2 - True copy of policy
Ex.R3 - Copy of the letter sent to owner/insured
Ex.R4 - Copy of letter sent to driver
XXII Addl. SCJ & ACJM
Bengaluru.
Digitally
signed by
ROOPASHRI
ROOPASHRI Date:
2025.11.06
15:43:50
+0530