Bangalore District Court
Ranganatha N vs Himansh Rusia on 20 November, 2025
KABC020229152024
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU. (SCCH-_25)
-: PRESENT:-
PRESENT: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA. R,
B.A.L, LL.B.,
XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025
MVC Nos.3543/2024 & 3544/2024
PETITIONER/s 1. Smt. Hari Prema @
in MVC No.3543/2024: Prema
W/o Late Nagesh N.,
Aged about 36 years,
2. Sri. Lakshmikantha D.N.
S/o Late Nagesh N.,
Aged about 21 years,
3. N. Vittal
S/o Late Nagesh N.,
Aged about 14 years,
4. Shri Ranganatha N.
S/o Late Nagesh N.,
Aged about 12 years,
Since petitioner Nos.3 & 4
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.3543/2024
& MVC No.3544/2024
are minor Rept. By their
Mother
Petitioner Nos.1 to 4
All are R/at # 105,
Milk Road,
Doddamarali, Chikkaballapura,
Karnataka - 562 103.
(By Smt. Champa C.,
Advocate/s)
Shri Ranganatha N.
PETITIONER/s S/o Late Nagesh N.,
in MVC No.3544/2024: Aged about 12 years,
R/at # 105, Milk Road,
Doddamarali,
Chikkaballapura,
Karnataka - 562 103.
(By Smt. Champa C.,
Advocate/s)
V/S
RESPONDENTS 1. Himansh Rusia
in both the cases: S/o Pradeep Kumar Rusia,
R/at #2232, E Block,
Pranava Gittaar Apt.
Kadabeesanahalli,
Bellandur,
Bangalore - 560 103.
(By Sri. V. Sudhindra
Murthy, Advocate.)
2. TATA AIG Gen. Ins. Co.
Ltd.,
JP & Jambukeswara Arcade,
SCCH-25 3 MVC No.3543/2024
& MVC No.3544/2024
No.69, Millers Road,
Bangalore.
(By Sri. Krishna Sheernali,
Advocate.)
COMMON JUDGMENT
These judgments arises out of claim petitions filed by the claimants against respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "Act") praying to award compensation in respect of the death of Sri.Nagesh N. and injuries sustained by the petitioner Master Shri Ranganatha N. in the road traffic accident occurred on 17.04.2024. Since the respondents in these two cases are the same, these cases are consolidated and common evidence are ordered to be recorded in MVC No.3543/2024.
2. The case of the claimants in nutshell is that:
On 17.04.2024 at about 8.30am, the deceased in MVC No.3543/2024 was riding his TVS Scooter bearing Reg.No.KA-41-EW-9431 along with his Son/petitioner in MVC No.3544/2024 as a pillion rider in order to go their native place to conduct Sri SCCH-25 4 MVC No.3543/2024 & MVC No.3544/2024 Ramanavami Pooja at Temple. When they were proceeding from Airport road towards Devanahalli side after passing Sadahalli Toll near Airport Flyover up ramp, a Car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-NA-8423 came with high speed, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and was coming back side of the motorcycle and all of a sudden took left side without any indication and dashed to the deceased's motorcycle. Due to impact both fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
3. It is the case of the petitioner in MVC No.3543/2024 that:
Immediately the deceased was shifted to Shree Shirdi Sai Hospital, wherein took treatment and when he was shifting for higher treatment to Prolife Hospital, he died on the way to the hospital. Postmortem was conducted at Government Hospital, Yelahanka, Bangalore thereafter petitioners performed funeral and obsequious ceremonies for which the petitioners have spent more than Rs.2,50,000/- inclusive of funeral and other incidental expenses.
4. It is the further case of the petitioners SCCH-25 5 MVC No.3543/2024 & MVC No.3544/2024 that, due to sudden and sad demise of the deceased in the tragic accident the petitioners are undergoing deep mental shock pain and sufferings. Prior to the date of accident he was hale and healthy, working as Purohita at Temple and earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month and contributed the entire income for the maintenance of his family. He was the only sole earning person in the family, due to untimely death of deceased, petitioners life has become dark and miserable and depressed and put to great financial hardship.
5. It is the case of the petitioner in MVC No.3544/2024 that:
Immediately the deceased was shifted to Shree Shirdi Sai Hospital, wherein provided first aid treatment, thereafter shifted to Prolife Multi specialty Hospital, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient, undergone surgery and discharged on 27.04.2024. So far petitioner has spent Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental expenses. On account of the said accidental injuries petitioner was completely bed ridden, he could not attend his work, undergoing deep mental shock since, the injuries caused are SCCH-25 6 MVC No.3543/2024 & MVC No.3544/2024 permanent in nature.
6. It is the further case of the petitioner that, prior to the date of accident he was hale and healthy and was very active member in the family. The petitioner was aged about 12 years and studying in 7th Std., working as Paper Vendor and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to accidental injuries he could not attend his work, resulted in loss of earnings, earning capacity and put to great financial hardship.
7. The accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent manner of driving by the driver of the offending Car bearing No.KA-01-NA-8423. The Chikkajala Traffic Police have registered a case in their Cr.No.37/2024 and filed charge sheet against the said driver p/u/Secs 279, 337 & 304(A) of IPC. The respondent No.1 being the RC owner and the Respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending Yamaha R15 Motorcycle bearing No.KA-54-R-4248 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners in both the cases. Hence, in both the cases, each petitioners prays for award for the total compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-
SCCH-25 7 MVC No.3543/2024& MVC No.3544/2024 and Rs.20,00,000/- respectively.
8. In response to the notice, the respondents appeared through their respective counsels, but the respondent No.2 alone filed written statement in both the cases.
8A. That the respondent No.2 in the written statement has denied the entire petition averments except admitting the issuance of policy in respect Car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-NA-8433 in favour of Respondent No.1 valid from 21.11.2023 to 20.11.2026. The policy was in existence as on the date of accident. There is non compliance of Secs. 134(c) & 158(6) of MV Act. The driver of the said Car did not possess a valid DL as on the date of accident. The accident caused due to the deceased himself. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Further denied the age, occupation, income and expenses incurred towards funeral. Further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition against them.
SCCH-25 8 MVC No.3543/2024& MVC No.3544/2024
9. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed for determination.
(Issues in MVC No.3543/2024) Issue No.1: Whether the petitioners prove that, the deceased Sri.Nagesh N. S/o Muninarayanappa, had died due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident that occurred on 17.04.2024 at about 8.30am, near Airport flyover up ramp, BB Road, Bangalore City, due to negligent driving of driver of ar bearing Reg.No.KA-01-NA-8423 as alleged?
Issue No.2: Whether the respondent No.2 proves that, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective DL at the time of alleged accident?
Issue No.3:Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? Form whom?
Issue No.4: What order or Award?
(Issues in MVC No.3544/2024) Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner prove that, he had sustained injuries in the Road Traffic Accident that occurred on 17.04.2024 at about 8.30am, near Airport flyover SCCH-25 9 MVC No.3543/2024 & MVC No.3544/2024 up ramp, BB Road, Bangalore City, due to negligent driving of driver of ar bearing Reg.No.KA-01-NA-8423 as alleged?
Issue No.2: Whether the respondent No.2 proves that, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective DL at the time of alleged accident?
Issue No.3:Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? Form whom?
Issue No.4: What order or Award?
10. In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioners of both cases have examined Petitioner No.1/Guardian of the Petitioner as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.23. In MVC No.3544/2024, the guardian of petitioner got examined Mr.T.G.Raghavendra - Medical Record Keeper at Prolife Multispecialty Hospital as PW.3 and got marked Exs.P.24 to P.28. Dr.S.A.Somashekar - Orthopaedic Surgeon at Victoria Hospital got examined as PW.4 and got marked Exs.P.29 & 30. Dr.K.M.Kumaraswamy - Chief Dental Consultant at Neravu Health Care Centre, Nandinilayout, Bangalore got examined as PW.5 and got marked Exs.P.31 & 32. Miss. Lakshmi T.N. - Medical Record Officer at Prolife SCCH-25 10 MVC No.3543/2024 & MVC No.3544/2024 Hospital got examined as PW.6 and got marked Ex.P.33. On the other side, the respondents did not examine any witness nor produced any documents on their behalf.
11. I have heard the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties.
12. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties before this tribunal, my answers to the above issues (in both cases) are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the affirmative
Issue No.2: In the negative,
Issue No.3: Partly in affirmative
Issue No.4: As per final order for the
foregoing:
#REASONS#
13. Issue Nos.1 & 2 in both the cases: As these issues are inter-linked each other, as such I considered these issues together for common discussion and also to avoid repetition of facts of the case. As I referred above, In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioner No.1/Guardian of the petitioner of both cases have SCCH-25 11 MVC No.3543/2024 & MVC No.3544/2024 examined as Pws.1 & 2. The petitioner in MVC No.3544/2024 have also got examined Four more witnesses as Pws.3 to 6. Exs.P1 to 23 were marked through Pws.1 & 2. The Pws.3 to 6 have got marked Exs.P24 to 33. The Respondents did not examine any witness nor produced any documents on their behalf. The details of the exhibits are given in the annexure of the judgment.
14. The chief examination of the PWs.1 & 2 are nothing but a repetition of plaint averments. These witnesses have been subjected to cross examination. The relevant portion of the Pws.1 & 2 are herewith reproduced:
The Pws.1 & 2 have deposed that: she has seen the accident spot. The complaint was lodged by her son. Further she has denied the material suggestions in the cross examination.
15. To prove the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased, they have produced notarized copy of Aadhar Card and DL of the deceased at Exs.P.11 and 12. Ex.P.5 Inquest report also shows the names and relationship of the petitioners with the deceased.
SCCH-25 12 MVC No.3543/2024& MVC No.3544/2024
16. The petitioners have totally relied on the police documents to establish the negligence on the part of the deceased and offending vehicle's driver. It can be gathered from the cross examination of the Pws.1 & 2, the insurer had set out a specific contention regarding the accident caused due to the negligence of the deceased himself. But it has not proved the same. It is worth note herein that both vehicle were proceedings in the same direction and the bike was almost on left side of the road. The offending vehicle was on next right to the bike. If the offending vehicle intent to proceed towards airport road, he ought to taken left side from ramp by switching the specific indication and also by following the traffic rules. In the present case on hand, the driver of the offending vehicle has tried to take his vehicle from right side to left side without observing oncoming vehicle from his left side. When such being the case, the rider of the bike was not in position to avoid the accident.
17. That the police documents ae clearly depicts that the alleged accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. A perusal of the charge sheet, the SCCH-25 13 MVC No.3543/2024 & MVC No.3544/2024 police have submitted the charge sheet against the accused or driver of the offending vehicle which is belongs to respondent No.1 and further the police have charge sheeted against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offense punishable under section 279, 338 & 304(A) of IPC. As per the police documents, the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving license at the time of alleged accident. Hence, it is not safe to hold that the offending vehicle's driver does not possess the valid driving license at the time of the alleged accident.
18. The Court cannot adopt strict liability as conducted in a criminal case to prove rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the respondent vehicle. But there should be prima-facie materials regarding rash and negligence to fix the owner and insurance company for payment of compensation. Therefore, a straight jacket formula cannot be adopted in accepting the rash and negligence on the part of driver of the insured. The materials on records are clearly indicates that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent No.1's vehicle. So, I hold in both the cases Issue No.1 in the affirmative and Issue No.2 in the Negative.
SCCH-25 14 MVC No.3543/2024& MVC No.3544/2024
19. Issue No.3 in MVC 3543/2024:
The Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 being the wife and children of the deceased. It is contention of the petitioners that the deceased was doing Purohita work at Temple and Functions and earning of Rs.30,000/- Per month. The petitioner No.1 has reiterated the same in the chief examination affidavit. But the petitioners have not placed any material worth in this regard. As per the claim petition the age of the deceased was 45 years. As per the Aadhar Card and DL is also indicates that, the deceased age was 45 years at the time of the accident. As I mentioned above, the petitioners have not placed any material worth to show the exact income of the deceased. So, considering the nature of work, the chart prepared, furnished by the Hon'ble Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, Bengaluru is taken in to consideration, the notional income of Rs.16,500/-pm is calculated to award loss of earning, it would meets the ends of justice. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2017) 16 SCC 680 in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi and others, if an injured person between 40 to 50 years, then 25% of future prospects should be added to his monthly income. So, the monthly SCCH-25 15 MVC No.3543/2024 & MVC No.3544/2024 income of deceased is Rs.16,500/- and the deceased comes between the age of 40 to 50 years slab then 25% of future prospects of his income would come to Rs.4,125/- then after adding the future prospects to his total income it comes to Rs.20,625/-. As per Sarala Varma's case the multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 14. PW.1 has stated that all the petitioners are depending on the income of the deceased. Hence, the petitioners No.1 to 4 are dependents of the deceased. If there are 4 to 6 dependents, then 1/4th of the income has to deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Then the total income of the deceased would come Rs.15,469/- (Rs.20,625/- - Rs.5,156/-
= Rs.15,469/-). The loss of dependency is calculated as below. Rs.15,469/- (monthly income) x 12 x 14 (multiplier) =Rs.25,98,792/-. This is just and proper compensation under the head of loss of dependency.
LOSS OF ESTATE
20. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Pranay Sethi case in case of death in the maximum the Court can award Rs.18,150/- in lump sum under the head of loss of estate.
SCCH-25 16 MVC No.3543/2024& MVC No.3544/2024 FUNERAL EXPENSES
21. In view of the Pranay Sethi's case this tribunal has no option but to award Rs.18,150/- under this head. Except these heads the claimants are not entitled for any compensation.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in a judgment reported in 1(2018) 18 SCC 130 has held in paragraph No.21 that "A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) dealt with the various heads under which the compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium. In legal parlance Consortium is a compendious term which encompasses Spousal Consortium; Parental consortium and filial consortium. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse."
21 1 "Spousal Consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of Company, Society, co operation, affection and aid of the other in every conjugal relation"
21 2 " Parental Consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, 1 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram SCCH-25 17 MVC No.3543/2024 & MVC No.3544/2024 for loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training."13,50,180 21 3 " Filial Consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of the Child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock, agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit."
22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world over have recognized that the value of a Child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore, permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child".
23. The Petitioner No.1 being wife, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 being the children of the deceased are entitled for '"Spousal Consortium', 'Parental Consortium' respectively. Hence a sum of Rs.1,93,600/- (Rs.48,400/- each) is awarded under this head.
SCCH-25 18 MVC No.3543/2024& MVC No.3544/2024
24. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation under the following heads.
Sl. Name of the Head Awarded
No. Compensation
01. Loss of dependency Rs.25,98,792=00
02. Towards loss of estate Rs.18,150=00
03. Towards Funeral Rs.18,150=00
expenses
04. Loss of Consortium Rs.1,93,600=00
TOTAL Rs.28,28,692=00
25. APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION:
The claimants No.1 to 4 being the wife and children of the deceased. Hence, they are entitled for 50:10:20:20 ratio respectively. On deposit of compensation, the claimant No.1 are entitled to withdraw 50% of her share and remaining share shall be invested as FD in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years. The entire share amount of the petitioner No.2 shall be released in his name and the entire share amount of the Petitioner Nos.3 & 4 shall be deposited in their respective names till they attains the age of majority. Petitioner No.1 is at liberty to withdraw accrued interest of deposit SCCH-25 19 MVC No.3543/2024 & MVC No.3544/2024 amount. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 partly in the Affirmative.
26. Issue No.3 in MVC No.3544/2024:
The petitioner has produced the wound certificate and discharge summary from the concerned hospital. The wound certificate (Ex.P19) discloses that, the petitioner has sustained (1) Injury and deformity over right thigh, (2) Lower lip laceration, (3) Left finger lacerated wound, (4) Clean lacerated wound over forehead. Out of these injuries, injury No.1 is grievous and Injury Nos.2, 3 & 4 are simple in nature.
27. In this regard, the petitioner has got examined two witnesses as Pws.3 and 6 and got marked Exs.P.24 to P.28 and Ex.P.33. They have been subject to cross examination. During the cross examination of PW.6, nothing worthwhile is elicited.
28. The petitioner has also got examined Dr.S.A.Somashekar as PW.4. The PW.4 has stated in the chief examination affidavit paragraph Nos.2 & 3 that "upon clinical examination it is found that the petitioner has sustained right femur shaft fracture, Nasal bone fracture wit Dento Alveolar fracture of SCCH-25 20 MVC No.3543/2024 & MVC No.3544/2024 Anterior Maxilla, underwent surgery in the form of closed reduction and splinting of Nasal bone fracture and bridge wiring of Dento Alveolar fracture under GA on 17.04.2024. CRIF with tens nailing for right femur under GA on 17.04.2024. Further stated that the petitioner has complains that pain and difficulty in walking and climbing stairs, H/o Difficulty in running and playing. On examination it is found that the petitioner walks with pain and limping, diffuse swelling of right lower limb is seen, surgical scars are seen. X-ray shows United fracture shaft femur right with implants in situ. PW.3 has opined that the petitioner has suffered disability of right lower limb at 26% and that of his whole body at 13% which is permanent in nature.
The PW.4 has been subjected to cross examination. During the cross examination, he has stated that he has not treated the petitioner. As per the investigation and as per the say of the petitioner, he has assessed the disability. The fractures are united and implants are in situ.
29. The petitioner has also got examined Dr.K.M.Kumaraswamy - Chief Dental Consultant as PW.5. The PW.5 has stated in the chief examination SCCH-25 21 MVC No.3543/2024 & MVC No.3544/2024 affidavit paragraph Nos.1 & 2 that "upon clinical examination it is found that the petitioner has sustained injury and deformity over right thigh and lower lip laceration, left finger lacerated and clean lacerated wound over forehead. Petitioner underwent operation under general Anesthesia and discharged on 27.04.2024 with an advice to take rest and continue medicines and follow up treatment. Recently PW.5 examined the petitioner on 18.02.2025 and petitioner complains that pain present in the both tempero mandibular joint region (TMJ), missing tooth present in the discussion present in the posterior teeth, mobility present in the Anterior region, rearrangement of the teeth, sensitivity of the teeth, unable to chew the hard substance, general weakness and giddiness. On clinical and radiological examination PW.5 fund that missing tooth present in the region of 5%, mobility present in the Anterior teeth 5%, disocclusion present in the posterior teeth 5%, sensitivity present in the teeth 5%. PW.5 has opined that the petitioner has suffered total disability at 20%.
The PW.5 has been subjected to cross examination. During the cross examination, the PW.5 has deposed that he referred the guidelines issued by SCCH-25 22 MVC No.3543/2024 & MVC No.3544/2024 the American government to assessed the percentage of disability.
30. Before discussing on this point, it is necessary to advert to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2 Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned".
22. Our Hon'ble High Court has held in a 2 2011 ACJ 1 SCCH-25 23 MVC No.3543/2024 & MVC No.3544/2024 case MFA.811 OF 2015 (MV-I) decided on 18 July, 2019 in between Rajanna @ Raju and another V/s Srinivas and another that "It is necessary to understand the meaning of the expression "permanent disability", which has been elucidated in Rajkumar. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights SCCH-25 24 MVC No.3543/2024 & MVC No.3544/2024 and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ("the Disabilities Act", for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation.
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is
permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent,
whether it is permanent total disablement or
permanent partial disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the person."
31. By considering the dictums of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Our Hon'ble High Court and also evidence led by the medical officer, It is appears to Court that, the petitioner has sustained grievous and simple injuries. And it certainly affected on functioning over the left leg. The petition discloses that the petitioner is student and helping to his mother in day today activities. The evidence of the SCCH-25 25 MVC No.3543/2024 & MVC No.3544/2024 medical officer clearly clinches that on clinical examination, the medical officer has pointed out that the petitioner is not required further treatment or follow up treatment and also implants should be remove. However the injuries affected to petitioner, certainly effects on his further education and also extra curriculum activities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in a judgment/decision of ALIVELI MALLAREDDY Vs SURTHANI LINGANNA 3 @ CHINNA LINGANNA & Others. in paragraph No.10 "This evidence has been dealt with by the High Court in extenso and having regard to the fact that the Almanco Manual would suggest that the disability when not assessed to the whole body, the disability to the lower limb will be 1/5 and upper limb be ¼ of the disability assessed."
By considering the age, nature of injuries and treatment, it is appears to Court that the petitioner has suffered functional disability 5.2% (26% ÷ 1/5 of right lower limb) + 10% to loss of tooth. As such, the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability of 15.0% whole body. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for the compensation under the following heads.
3 CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19636 of 2024) dated 07.04.2025 SCCH-25 26 MVC No.3543/2024 & MVC No.3544/2024 PECUNIARY DAMAGES I. Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and misc. expenditures.
32. The claimant has contended that he has taken treatment at Shree Shirdi Sai Hospital, Bangalore provided first aid and thereafter treated at Prolife Multi specialty Hospital, wherein the petitioner was admitted as an inpatient from 17.04.2024 to 27.04.2024, underwent several examination and operation done and discharged with advice. Ex.P20 further indicates that the petitioner got admitted in the hospital on 17.04.2024 to 27.04.2024. The documents placed by the petitioner indicates that he has taken treatment before the said hospital. To prove the same, the Petitioner has produced the discharge summary and also examined the MRT of said hospital and also got secured the clinical notes marked at Ex.P29. The petitioner has produced medical bills at Ex.P.22 for a sum of Rs.4,23,469/-. There is no contrary to these bills from the respondents. On careful perusal of the medical bills, there is no repeated bills. Hence, I award a sum of Rs.4,20,053/- as compensation to the claimant under the head of treatment and medical SCCH-25 27 MVC No.3543/2024 & MVC No.3544/2024 expenses. As supra said, the petitioner has admitted in the said Hospitals as an inpatient. It can be seen at Ex.P.20 as per this document, petitioner admitted on 17.04.2024 to 27.04.2024 for about 11 days. Hence, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.500/-per day for attendant and Rs.500/- for food and nourishment charges, which would comes Rs.11,000/-. A sum of Rs.11,000/- is awarded under the head of attendant, food and nourishment charges.
(ii) LOSS OF EARNING
33. The claimant has contended that, he was assisting her mother in the business and earning earning of Rs.15,000/- per month. To prove the same, she has not produced any documents. In the recent decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs Baba Bhai Nagjibhai Rabari (Civil Appeal No. 10278 of 2025 decided on 08/08/2025 by relying on the decision rendered in the case Kajal V Jagadish Chand & others (2020) 4 SCC 413 and Baby Sakshi GreolaVs Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692 reiterated that, a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed in the same SCCH-25 28 MVC No.3543/2024 & MVC No.3544/2024 category as a non-earning individual for the purposes of assessing the amount of compensation because the child was not engaged in gainful employment at the time of the accident. In such a case, the computation of compensation under the head of loss of income ought to be made by adopting, at the very least, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective State where the cause of action arises"
34. The alleged accident was occurred on 17.04.2024. As per notification issued by Central Government on 31st May 2010, the monthly wages fixed with effect from 31st May 2010 is Rs.8,000/-. The relevant notification is as under:
"S.O.1258(E) - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1B) of Section 4 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, (g of 1923), the Central Government hereby specified, for the purpose of Sub-Section (1) of the said section, the following amount as monthly wages, with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the official gazette, namely - Eight thousand rupees.
"With effect from 3rd January 2020 it is again amended and Rs.15,000/- is fixed."SCCH-25 29 MVC No.3543/2024
& MVC No.3544/2024 As such, income of the petitioner considered as Rs.15,000/-pm is calculated to award loss of earning, it would meets the ends of justice. Therefore, I award Rs.5,500/- to the claimant under the head of loss of earning during the treatment.
(b) LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING ON ACCOUNT OF PERMANENT DISABILITY:
35. The claimant has examined the Doctor to substantiate the disability as Pws-4 & 5. As already discussed above, the petitioner was suffered disability of 15.% for functional loss of malocclusion. It is undisputed fact that the injured was minor at the time of accident. Therefore, the age of the petitioner considered as 12 years at the time of accident and the multiplier is 18. The loss of future earning is calculated as Rs.15,000/- (Monthly income X 12 (Months) X 18 (Multiplier) X 15(disability)÷100 = Rs.4,86,000/- which is the just and proper compensation payable to claimant.
NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES (GENERAL DAMAGES)
(iii) Damages for pain and suffering and trauma consequence of the injuries.
SCCH-25 30 MVC No.3543/2024& MVC No.3544/2024
36. The claimant has undergone pain and suffering during the accident and during the rehabilitation period. Therefore, I award Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant under the head of pain and suffering.
37. The claimant in all entitled for just compensation under the following heads:
Sl. NATURE OF THE HEADS COMPENSATION No. 01 Medical Expenses Rs.4,20,053=00 02 Loss of income during Rs.5,500=00 treatment 03 Attendant, Food & Rs.11,000=00 Nourishment charges 04 Pain and Suffering Rs.1,00,000=00 05 Loss of future earning on Rs.4,86,000=00 account of disability TOTAL Rs.10,22,553=00
38. The next question is the liability to pay the said compensation. As I referred above the accident was occurred due rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence respondents are SCCH-25 31 MVC No.3543/2024 & MVC No.3544/2024 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, the respondent No.2 has to indemnify the respondent No.1 in paying the compensation to the petitioners in both the cases.. Hence, I answer issue No.3 partly in affirmative in both cases.
39. Issue No.4 in both cases:- In view of my findings to the above points, I proceed to pass the following:
-: ORDER :-
The claim petitions filed by claimants under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are allowed in part against respondent No.2.
The Respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and directed to deposit the same within 60 days from the date of this judgment.
The Petitioners of MVC
No.3543/2024 are entitled for
compensation of Rs.28,28,692/-
(Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Twenty SCCH-25 32 MVC No.3543/2024 & MVC No.3544/2024 Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Two Only) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The claimants No.1 to 4 are
entitled for 50:10:20:20 ratio
respectively. On deposit of
compensation, the claimant No.1
are entitled to withdraw 50% of her share and remaining share shall be invested as FD in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years.
The entire share amount of the petitioner No.2 shall be released in his name and the entire share amount of the Petitioner Nos.3 & 4 shall be deposited in their respective names till they attains the age of majority.
Petitioner No.1 is at liberty to withdraw accrued interest of deposit amount The Petitioner of MVC No.3544/2024 is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,22,553/-
SCCH-25 33 MVC No.3543/2024
& MVC No.3544/2024
(Rupees Ten Lakhs Twenty Two
Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty
Three Only) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
On deposit of compensation, the guardian of the petitioner is entitled to withdraw 30% and remaining 70% shall be invested as FD in the name of the petitioner any nationalized bank till he attains the age of majority. The guardian is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest thereon.
The Advocates fee of Rs.1,000/- fixed.
Keep the copies of this judgment in MVC No.3544/2024.
Draw the award accordingly. (Directly typed and computerized by the stenographer, corrected by me then pronounced in the open Court on this the 20th day of November, 2025) (RAGHAVENDRA R.) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, Bangalore.SCCH-25 34 MVC No.3543/2024
& MVC No.3544/2024 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the Petitioner:
PW.1 : Smt. Smt. Hari Prema @ Prema PW.2 : Smt. Smt. Hari Prema @ Prema PW.3 : Sri. T.G.Raghavendra PW.4 : Dr. S.A.Somashekara PW.5 : Dr.K.M.Kumaraswamy PW.6 : Miss. Lakshmi T.N.
List of documents marked for the petitioner:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR with complaint
Ex.P2 True copy of Spot mahazar
Ex.P3 True copy of Spot sketch
Ex.P4 True copy of Vehicle inspection report 2
in nos
Ex.P5 True copy of Inquest report
Ex.P6 True copy of PM report
Ex.P7 True copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P8 True copy of Notice ad reply u/Sec.133 of
MV Act
Ex.P9 True copy of Police intimation
Ex.P10 True copy of Death memo
Ex.P11 Notarized copies of Adhaar cards of petitioners and deceased (5 in nos) Ex.P12 Notarized copy of DL of deceased SCCH-25 35 MVC No.3543/2024 & MVC No.3544/2024 Ex.P13 Lab reports 10 in nos Ex.P14 ECG of deceased Ex.P15 Medical bills 4 in nos Ex.P16 Advance receipt Ex.P17 Medical prescription 3 in nos Ex.P18 Bank account statement Ex.P19 True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P20 Discharge summary Ex.P21 Medical bills 17 in nos Ex.P22 Medical prescriptions 30 in nos Ex.P23 Advance receipts 6 in nos Ex.P24 Authorization letter Ex.P25 Copy of MLC registration extract Ex.P26 Copy of Police intimation Ex.P27 Case sheet Ex.P28 X-rays 7 in nos Ex.P29 Clinical Notes Ex.P30 X-ray Ex.P31 OPD Card Ex.P32 X-rays 2 in Nos.
Ex.P33 Authorization letter SCCH-25 36 MVC No.3543/2024 & MVC No.3544/2024 List of witnesses examined for the Respondents.
-- NIL --
List of documents marked for the Respondents:
-- NIL --
(RAGHAVENDRA R.) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, Bangalore.Digitally signed by RAMACHANDRAPPA
RAMACHANDRAPPA RAGHAVENDRA RAGHAVENDRA Date: 2025.11.24 13:56:24 +0530