Bangalore District Court
Srinivasulu B vs Krishnaiah N on 30 January, 2026
KABC020610822024
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU CITY
SCCH-17
Present: Sri. KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM B.A.L, LL.M.,
Member, MACT
XIX ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 30th day of January - 2026
MVC No. 7007/2024
PETITIONER/S: Sri. B Srinivasulu
S/o Late Anjanashetty
Aged About 39 years
Hale Water tank, Pavagada,
Pavagada taluk,
Dist Tumakuru,
Karnataka - 561202.
(By Sri. Harish Kumar B.G. Adv.)
V/s.
RESPONDENTS: 1.N Krishnaiah
S/o Narasimhulu
1-69 Vellamaddi, Vellamaddi,
Nallamada, Anantapur,
SCCH-17 2 MVC No.7007/2024
Andhra Pradesh - 515501.
[Owner of the Tempo Bearing No. KL 07
BB 6994]
(Exparte)
2. United India Gen INS Co Ltd
Regional Office, 5th & 6th floor,
Krishi Bhavan, Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560001.
[Insurer of the Tempo Bearing No. KL 07
BB 6994]
Policy No. 0510013123P116977077
Period from 19.03.2024 to 18.03.2025.
(By Sri. B.R. Venkatesh Kamath,
Adv.)
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition U/Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident that occurred on 19.08.2024.
2. The petition averments in brief are as under:
On 19.08.2024 at about 5.15 p.m., the petitioner was proceeding by riding the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-64-L-6424 near Challakere cross, Pavagada, SCCH-17 3 MVC No.7007/2024 Tumakuru, Karnataka, at that time the driver of the Tempo bearing No.KL-07-BB-6994 drove the same at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner and caused the accident. Due to the said impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
Immediately after the accident, petitioner was shifted to Pavagada Govt. Hospital, thereafter for higher treatment he was shifted to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital wherein he was admitted as an inpatient. The petitioner has spent Rs.5,00,000/- towards hospitalization, conveyance, medical treatment and attendant expenses.
Prior to the accident, petitioner was hale and healthy, aged about 39 years and was working at Private and earning Rs.40,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, petitioner is still under treatment and lost his earning capacity. SCCH-17 4 MVC No.7007/2024
The respondent No.1 being the RC Owner and the respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Hence, prays to award compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest.
3. In spite of service of summons, the respondent No.1 -owner has not appeared before the tribunal and placed exparte.
After service of summons respondent No.2- insurance company appeared through its counsel and filed written Statement.
Respondent No.2 insurance company appeared through its counsel and filed written statement by admitting the issuance of policy to the Tempo bearing No.KL-07-BB-6994 in favour of first respondent and the policy was in force as on the date of accident and the liability of this respondent, if any, is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Further contended that there is SCCH-17 5 MVC No.7007/2024 no compliance of Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act. Further contended that at the time of accident Tempo bearing No.KL-07-BB-6994 there is no valid fitness certificate and permit thereby the respondent No.1 had violated the condition of the insurance policy. Further the driver of the tempo was not having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. Further denied the age, avocation, alleged disability and income of the petitioner. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant. Hence, the respondent No.2 insurance company prays to dismiss the petition against it.
4. On the basis of the rival contention, the following issues are framed by this court:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries due to the actionable negligent driving of Tempo bearing Reg. No. KL-07-BB-
6994 by its driver, in RTA took place on 19.08.2024 at about 5:15 p.m near SCCH-17 6 MVC No.7007/2024 Challakere cross Pavagada town, Tumakuru?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount & from whom?
3. What order or award?
5. In order to prove the claim petition, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to 17. Further examined the MRD of Maharaj Agrasen Hospital and Dr.Nagaraj B.N., Orthopedic surgeon at Sai Ortho and Dental Senter, Bangalore as PW.2 and 3 and got marked Ex.P.18 to 22 and closed their side evidence.
On the other hand, respondent examined Chaithanya Kumar, Junior Assistant, DTO, Hindupura as RW-1 and got marked the documents at Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 and respondent No.2 insurance company examined its official as RW-2 and got marked Ex.R3 and Ex.R4 and closed their side evidence. SCCH-17 7 MVC No.7007/2024
6. Heard the arguments and perused evidence that are available on record.
The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 relied on the following decision:
2025 ACJ 2102 - Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in between Bantu Bhadraiah V/s Reparthy Ravi Kumar and another.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under.
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative;
Issue No.2 : In the affirmative
Issue No.3 : As per final orders
for the following:-
: R E A S O N S:
ISSUE NO.1 :
8. That by reiterating all the averments made in the petition, the petitioner has filed affidavit in lieu of- examination in-chief, which is considered as PW.1. In support of his case, he has produced true copies of FIR and complaint, spot mahazar, wound certificate, IMV SCCH-17 8 MVC No.7007/2024 report, Notice and reply under Sec.133 of MV Act and charge sheet which are marked under Ex.P.1 to 8.
9. On perusal of Ex.P1- FIR is registered on the basis of the first information given by one Swathi who is the wife of the petitioner. The first informant has alleged about the negligence of the driver of Tempo bearing No.KL-07-BB-6994. In continuation the IO conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P.3. The Ex.P3 establishes that the offending tempo came from the opposite direction and came to the extreme right side of the road and caused the accident. There by the mahazar establishes that the driver of Tempo bearing No.KL-07-BB-6994 came to his extreme right side i.e., to wrong side and caused the accident. Thus the contents of Ex.P3 establishes the negligence of the driver of Tempo bearing No.KL-07-BB- 6994.
10. The petitioner examined himself as PW.1 by deposing the negligence of the driver of the Tempo SCCH-17 9 MVC No.7007/2024 bearing No.KL-07-BB-6994 and produced documents in support of his case to prove the alleged negligence. The PW.1 was cross-examined at length by denying the negligence of the Tempo bearing No.KL-07-BB-6994 but nothing has been elicited to disprove the case of the petitioner. The accident spot is in the left side portion of the road in which the petitioner was proceeding, thereby the contention of the respondent No.2 in respect of contributory negligence of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
11. The Ex.P.8 is the charge sheet wherein the IO after detailed investigation found the negligence of the driver of the Tempo bearing No.KL-07-BB-6994. The charge sheet was also came to be filed on the driver of the Tempo bearing No.KL-07-BB-6994. The IO has opined that the negligence was on the part of driver of the Tempo bearing No.KL-07-BB-6994. No grounds are made out by the respondents to show that contributory SCCH-17 10 MVC No.7007/2024 negligence from the petitioner. It is very important to note that if the driver of Tempo bearing No.KL-07-BB- 6994 was in a controllable speed and if he was not negligent before coming to the wrong side he could have controlled his vehicle before dashing the petitioner. This shows the gross negligence of the driver of Tempo bearing No.KL-07-BB-6994.
12. As discussed supra, the petitioner successfully established the actionable negligence by the driver of the Tempo bearing No.KL-07-BB-6994. Thus, by considering all these points this court is of the opinion that the said accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tempo bearing No.KL-07-BB-6994.
13. The Ex.P8 charge sheet was came to be filed on the driver of the Tempo bearing No.KL-07-BB-6994. At this juncture, I would like to quote the following judgment wherein it states that;
SCCH-17 11 MVC No.7007/2024
2009 ACJ 287 ( National Ins. Co. V/s.
Pushparama and others), wherein it is held that, Certified copy of the criminal court records such as FIR, recovery and mechanical inspection of the vehicle or documents are of sufficient proof to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a Civil Court. Hence, strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard.
14. By relying on the said precedent and in the absence of rebuttal evidence and denial in respect of police documents, this court is of the opinion that the accident has happened due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tempo bearing No.KL-07- BB-6994.
15. In a claim for compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant is to prove the SCCH-17 12 MVC No.7007/2024 incident only on preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2011 SAR (CIVIL) 319 Kusum and others V/s Satbir and others.
16. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others (2009) 13 SCC 530, wherein it is held that, it was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied.
17. In this context by considering the contents of Ex.P1 to 8 this court tilts in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner has to prove the alleged negligence on the SCCH-17 13 MVC No.7007/2024 basis of the evidence and proof of the same on preponderance of probabilities.
18. As per well settled principle of law, the standard of proof in the claim petition like the present is preponderance of the probability. There are no grounds to disbelieve the case of petitioner in the absence of rebuttal evidence. All the materials available on record leading to show that, petitioner has sustained injuries in the accident took place on 19.08.2024 which was caused by the driver of the Tempo bearing No.KL-07-BB-6994 which belonging to respondent No.1. There is no reason to discard the evidence of petitioner. In the claim petition like present one strict proof is not necessary, but preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. Accordingly, issue No.1 answered in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2:
19. As already held herein above, the petitioner has proved that he has sustained injuries in RTA which SCCH-17 14 MVC No.7007/2024 is caused by the driver of the Tempo bearing No.KL-07- BB-6994. Hence, the petitioner is entitle for compensation. Now the quantum of compensation is to be ascertained on different heads.
a) PAIN AND AGONY:- Petitioner has alleged that at the time of accident he was aged about 39 years. As per Aadhaar card marked at Ex.P11 the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 09.11.1983. The accident took place on 19.08.2024. Hence as on the date of accident, petitioner was aged about 41 years 7 months 10 days. As per the discharge summary marked at Ex.P10 the petitioner took treatment as an inpatient at Maharaja Agrasen hospital, Bengaluru from 20.08.2024 to 27.08.2024 for a period of 8 days and from 27.06.2025 to 28.06.2025 at Bharathi Nursing Home i.e., for 2 days in total 10 days sustained fracture of right proximal tibia condyle with impending compartment syndrome, mild head injury and underwent surgery. By considering the SCCH-17 15 MVC No.7007/2024 nature of the injuries and period he spent to overcome the pain and other allied effects of the accident Rs.45,000/- may be awarded to the petitioner under this head.
b) Medical expenses: The petitioner has produced medical bills which is marked as Ex.P-13 and Ex.P16. These bills are supported with the Advance receipts and prescriptions marked at Ex.P14 and Ex.P17. These bills are not seriously disputed by the respondents and no grounds are made out to disbelieve the bills. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case in combined with the alleged injuries the petitioner is entitled for the reimbursement of the same by rounding off the same i.e., Rs.3,57,500/- under this head.
c) Loss of income during laid up period: The petitioner has stated that he was working at Private and earning Rs.40,000/- per month. To prove the said fact the petitioner has not produced any document. In the SCCH-17 16 MVC No.7007/2024 absence of any document the notional income of the petitioner is considered at Rs.16,500/- p.m. as the accident is of the year 2024.
As per the discharge summary marked at Ex.P10 and P.15 petitioner was admitted to Maharaja Agrasen hospital, Bengaluru from 20.08.2024 to 27.08.2024 for a period of 8 days and from 27.06.2025 to 28.06.2025 at Bharathi Nursing Home i.e., for 2 days in total 10 days. Thereafter usually the healing period has to be considered for which in the absence of evidence, this court is of the opinion that in total 4 months period may be considered under this head as a loss of income. So, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.16,500 X 4 months = Rs.66,000/- during the laid up period.
d) Disability;- To prove the nature of injuries sustained by him the petitioner examined Dr. Nagaraj B.N., working as Orthopedic Surgeon at Sai Ortho And Dental Center as PW.3, through him clinical notes and X- SCCH-17 17 MVC No.7007/2024 ray are marked at Ex.P21 & P22. According to the evidence of this witness the petitioner sustained right proximal tibial condyle fracture with impending compartment syndrome and head injury, PW.2 has examined the petitioner for assessment of disability. Petitioner suffered disability right lower limb at 52% and to the whole body at 18%. This aspect is not impeached during the course of cross-examination.
According to the petitioner he was working at Private company and suffered right proximal tibial condyle fracture with impending compartment syndrome and head injury. The disability caused to the petitioner may affect on his occupation to some extent. Hence, I hold that the petitioner sustained disability of 15% to the whole body.
As per Sarala Verma's case, the proper multiplier applicable to the age of petitioner is '14'. Hence, I inclined to award future loss of income at Rs.16,500/- X SCCH-17 18 MVC No.7007/2024 12 X 14 X 15% =Rs.4,15,800/- which is the total loss of future income.
e) FOOD, NOURISHMENT AND CONVEYANCE; As per discharge summary, the petitioner was admitted to Maharaja Agrasen hospital, Bengaluru and Bharathi Nursing Home and taken the treatment and also underwent surgery. As per wound certificate marked at Ex.P4 the injuries sustained by the petitioner are grievous in nature. By considering the nature of injuries and the period he spent to overcome the pain and other allied effects of the accident. Hence looking to the treatment taken by the petitioner and injuries sustained he is entitled for compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards food and nourishment, conveyance.
f) ATTENDANT CHARGES: The petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the accident. The petitioner admitted to Maharaja Agrasen hospital, Bengaluru and Bharathi Nursing Home as per Ex.P10 and P.15. There is no SCCH-17 19 MVC No.7007/2024 evidence or pleading in this regard to show that the petitioner was in need of attendant. As per Ex.P10 and P.15 the petitioner was admitted to Maharaja Agrasen hospital, Bengaluru from 20.08.2024 to 27.08.2024 for a period of 8 days and from 27.06.2025 to 28.06.2025 at Bharathi Nursing Home i.e., for 2 days in total 10 days thereby the petitioner has spent 10 days as inpatient in the hospital. By considering the nature of the injuries as discussed above, it may be considered to award attendant charges Rs.10,000/- in total as he was inpatient for a period of 10 days in the hospital.
g) Towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life:
The petitioner admitted to the hospital for the injuries sustained by him, which might certainly have deprived him of the basic comforts and enjoyment. The petitioner also sustained head injury. Therefore, it is just and proper to award a reasonable sum of Rs.35,000/- under this head.SCCH-17 20 MVC No.7007/2024
h) Towards future medical expenses: Nil
a) Towards pain and agony Rs. 45,000/-
b) Towards Medical expenses Rs. 66,000/-
c) Loss of income during laid up Rs. 66,000/-
period
d) Towards loss of disability Rs. 4,15,800/-
e) Towards food nourishment and Rs. 25,000/-
conveyance
f) Towards attendant charges Rs. 10,000/-
g) Towards loss of amenities Rs. 35,000/-
Total Rs.9,54,300/-
20. Liability:- The respondent No.2 in its objection statement has admitted the issuance of policy to the offending Tempo bearing No. KL-07-BB-6994 and taken contention that the driver of the offending tempo was not having valid licence at the time of accident. In this regard the respondent No.2 insurance company examined Junior Assistant, DTO office as RW.1 and produced the Ex.R1 and 2 and also examined its official as RW-2 and produced the Ex.R3 and 4.SCCH-17 21 MVC No.7007/2024
21. The Ex.R4 is the copy of policy wherein it shows that the Tempo bearing No. KL-07-BB-6994 was insured with them from 19.03.2024 to 18.03.2025 in respect of third party liability. The date of accident was 19.08.2024.
As such as on the date of accident the offending Tempo bearing No. KL-07-BB-6994 was duly insured with respondent No.2 - insurance company.
22. The respondent No.1 is the RC owner of the Tempo bearing No. KL-07-BB-6994. The respondent No.1 neither appeared before the court nor choossen to adduce any evidence.
23. The respondent No.2 summoned the official of RTO and marked Ex.R1 & 2. As per Ex.R2 one Venkatesh G. who was the driver of Tempo bearing No.KL-07-BB-6994 had the driving licence to drive the three-wheeler non-transport from 21.10.2009 to 20.10.2029. Thereby the Ex.R2 clearly establishes that there was no specific endorsement is available by SCCH-17 22 MVC No.7007/2024 showing that the driver of Tempo bearing No. KL-07-BB- 6994 was having the valid driving licence to drive the tempo. In this regard when the RW1 was cross-examined being the official of RTO of department has contended that as per the guidelines the said Venkatesh by having driving licence as per Ex.R2 can drive transport vehicle where the gross vehicle weight is upto 7500kgs and incase of non-transport vehicles unladen weight upto 7500kgs. When the permit copy of the Tempo bearing No. KL-07-BB-6994 was confronted to RW1 he admitted that the gross vehicle weight of Tempo bearing No. KL-07-BB- 6994 is 5300kgs.
24. In the judgment reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668 - Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held has follows:
"60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which SCCH-17 23 MVC No.7007/2024 does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the "unladen weight"
of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form''.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above quoted judgment has held that the light motor vehicle u/Sec.2(21) of MV Act includes a transport vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500Kg and also motor Car or Tractor or a Road roller "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500Kg and in the same decision it is held that the Driver's licence given for LMV could be used for a Transport vehicle if "unladen weight" does not exceed 7500Kg. A person holding license for LMV-TR can drive a vehicle upto 7500kg SCCH-17 24 MVC No.7007/2024 unladen weight. In the light of the ratio laid down in the decision reported in 2017 AIR (SC) 3668[Mukund Dewangan V/s Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd and others], a driver who possesses a Light Motor Vehicle license can drive any class of vehicle which comes under LMV category. That is to say no separate endorsement is required to drive transport vehicle or a Tractor.
25. In the recent judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.841/2018 between M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Ramba Devi and others held that, a person with a driving licence for light motor vehicles (LMV) is entitled to drive transport vehicle of light motor vehicles having unladen weight not exceeding 7,500 Kgs. Thereby once again the Hon'ble Supreme Court held its earlier decision in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., thereby it is held that the transport vehicles, the gross weight of SCCH-17 25 MVC No.7007/2024 which do not exceed 7,500 Kgs are not excluded from the definition of LMV.
26. In this case, the driver of the offending Tempo bearing No. KL-07-BB-6994 had the driving licence to drive the LMV three-wheeler non-transport. The gross weight of the Tempo bearing No. KL-07-BB-6994 is 5300kgs. Thereby the driver can drive the Tempo bearing No. KL-07-BB-6994 by holding the licence as per Ex.R.2. Accordingly no grounds are made out to consider the violation of policy conditions. Under such circumstances, the respondent No.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and the respondent No.2 is liable to deposit the compensation on behalf of respondent No.1 along with the interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Accordingly Issue No.2 is answered in the affirmative by holding that the petitioner is entitled for the compensation as discussed above.
SCCH-17 26 MVC No.7007/2024
ISSUE NO.3:
27. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for total compensation amount of Rs.9,54,300/- (Rupees Nine lakhs fifty four thousand three hundred only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the realization from respondents.
The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of this order.
Out of awarded amount of petitioner, 75% shall be released to petitioner with interest on proper identification and the remaining 25% shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in his name in any Scheduled Bank, for a period of two years.
Advocate fee is fixed at 1,500/-.
SCCH-17 27 MVC No.7007/2024Draw up award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pro nounced in the open court on this the 30th day of January 2026) (Kanchi Mayanna Goutam) XIX ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for petitioners:
PW.1 Sri. B. Srinivasulu PW.2 Sri P.C Umesh PW.3 Dr.Nagaraj B.N.
List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR Ex.P2 True copy of Complaint Ex.P3 True copy of Spot Mahazar Ex.P4 True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P5 True copy of IMV report Ex.P6 True copy of Notice and reply u/Sec.133 of MV Act &7 Ex.P8 True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P9 OPD record Ex.P10 Discharge summary Ex.P11 Notarized copy of my Aadhar Card SCCH-17 28 MVC No.7007/2024
Ex.P12 X-ray, CT scan films along with CD collectively marked Ex.P13 Medical bills Ex.P14 Advance receipts Ex.P15 Discharge summary Ex.P16 Medical bills Ex.P17 Medical Prescription Ex.P18 Authorization letter Ex.P19 Case sheets Ex.P20 X-rays Ex.P21 Clinical notes Ex.P22 X-ray List of witnesses examined for Respondents:
RW-1 A. Chaithanya Kumar RW-2 Prashant N.G.
List of documents marked on behalf of the Respondents:
Ex.R1 Authorization letter
Ex.R2 True copy of Driving license extract
Ex.R3 Authorization letter
Ex.R4 True copy of Insurance policy
(Kanchi Mayanna Goutam)
XIX ADDL.JUDGE
Court of Small Causes & MACT.,
Bengaluru.
Digitally signed
by KANCHI
KANCHI MAYANNA
MAYANNA GOUTAM
Date:
GOUTAM 2026.02.03
12:12:47 +0530