Bangalore District Court
Veenthkumar.S vs Susheela on 1 September, 2025
KABC020044302021
IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND ACJM
AND ADDL. MACT., BENGALURU, (SCCH-15)
PRESENT: RESHMA JANE RODRIGUES
M.com., LL.M.,
XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge,
ACJM, Court of Small Causes
& Member,MACT-15, Bengaluru.
MVC No.1009/2021
Dated this the 1st day of September 2025
Petitioner/s: Sri. Vineeth Kumar S
S/o Shankar Lal P
Aged about 20 years,
R/at Bhavani bankers,
Bazaar road, Malavalli town,
Malavalli, Mandya - 571430.
(By Sri. B. Bomme Gowda, Adv.)
Versus
Respondents : 1) Susheela
C/o Basavaraju,
# 80, Chilakavadi village & post,
Kollegala taluk,
Chamarajanagara - 571442.
SCCH 15 2 MVC No.1009/2021
(RC owner of Activa Honda
bearing Reg.No.KA-10-EA-6519)
(By Sri. N. Nataraju, Adv.)
2) Cholamandalam Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.,
Unit 4, 9th floor (Level-06)
Golden Height complex,
59th C cross, Industrial suberz,
Rajajinagar 4th block,
Bengaluru - 560010.
(Policy No.3361/01180904/000/00
valid till 31.05.2024)
(By Sri. Kiran Pujar, Adv.)
*****
:JUDGMENT:
This claim petition emanates in respect of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner Sri Vineeth Kumar in respect of the Road Traffic Accident dated 25.12.2020.
2. Succinctly stated the facts germane to the lis involved in this petition are briefly summarized as follows:
That on 25.12.2020 at about 6.55 p.m., when the petitioner was riding TVS Victor bearing Reg.No.KA-11-L-1047 along with pillion rider and when they reached Talakaadu -
SCCH 15 3 MVC No.1009/2021 Saraguru handpost road, near Mudukutore circle, at that time, respondent's Honda Activa bearing Reg.No.KA-10-EA- 6519(herein after referred to as the offending vehicle) came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the Petitioner's motorcycle, resulting in the accident. It is submitted that the Petitioner sustained grievous injuries all over the body due to the impact of the accident.
3. Immediately, after the accident petitioner was shifted to Government hospital, Malavalli and then he was shifted to Apollo hospital, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient. Hence, the petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- with cost and interest at the rate of 12% p.a in the interest of justice and equity.
4. In pursuance of service of the notice issued to the Respondent No.1 and 2 they have put in appearance through their Counsels.
The Respondent No.2 has filed written statement submitting as follows:
SCCH 15 4 MVC No.1009/2021 The respondent No.2 admitted that it has issued private policy to the offending motorcycle in favour of the respondent No.1. The Respondent No.2 in its Objection Statement denied the accident was caused by rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending vehicle. The rider of the offending motorcycle did not have valid and effective driving license. The age, avocation of the petitioner is denied. The petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Hence, on these grounds Respondent No.2 has prayed to dismiss the petition against it.
5. Vide order dated 14.02.2022 the following issues were framed by this Tribunal :-
ISSUES
1) Whether the Petitioner proves that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of riding of Honda Activa bearing Reg.No.KA-10-EA-6519 and as a result he sustained injuries?
2) Whether the petitioner proves the age and earnings of the petitioner as stated in the claim petition?
SCCH 15 5 MVC No.1009/2021
3) Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4) What Order or Award?
6. In order to prove the case of the Petitioner, the Petitioner got examined himself as PW.1 and examined one witness as PW.2 and relied upon Ex.P.1 to 27 and the Respondent No.2 has examined two witnesses as RW.1 & 2 and relied upon Ex.R1 and 2.
7. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 has relied on the following provisions of law and citations:
1. Special Leave petition (civil) No.11757 of 2025, between Mahaveer Vs The Branch Manager, United India Ins. Co. Ltd., & others.
2. MFA No.6154/2019 (MV-D), between Hemalatha @ Hema @ Hemavathi Vs. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.,
3. 2020 ACJ 3000, between Beli Ram Vs Rajinder Kumar and another SCCH 15 6 MVC No.1009/2021
8. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for parties in this case. Having perused the records my issue wise findings run as under:-
Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative. Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative. Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.4 : As per the Final Order
for the following :
REASONS
9. Issue No.1: Before adjudication of the issue with respect to the compensation it is quintessential to adjudicate on the issue of negligence. It is the contention of the petitioner that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Honda Activa bearing Reg.No.KA-
10-EA-6519/offending vehicle.
10. In this regard the petitioner got himself examined as PW.1 and in his chief-examination he has deposed that the petitioner is having electrical and hardware shop and he was daily travelling from Malavalli to Talakadu. That on SCCH 15 7 MVC No.1009/2021 25.12.2020 after closing the shop he was returning to Malavalli and the petitioner rode his brother's scooter bearing Reg.No.KA-11-L-1047 and his brother was a pillion rider and when they reached Talakadu - Saraguru handpost, Mudukutore circle, at about 6.55 p.m at that time Honda Activa bearing Reg.No.KA-10-EA-6519 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooter of the petitioner from the front side as a result the petitioner along with his brother fell down and he sustained grievous injuries.
11. The petitioner in support of his claim has in addition to describing the course of the accident in line with the facts mentioned in the complaint has relied upon Ex.P14 to 23 documents. Ex.P14 is the FIR which is registered on the basis of the complaint given by the brother of PW.1 on 28.12.2020. It is mentioned in the complaint that since they were obtaining treatment at Apollo hospital, Mysore, there is a delay in lodging the complaint. The said complaint was registered against the rider of the offending vehicle for the offenses under SCCH 15 8 MVC No.1009/2021 Sec.279 and 337 of IPC. Ex.P16 is the spot mahazar which discloses that the road of the accident is about 24 feet wide and the accident has taken on the middle of the road. Ex.P19 and 20 IMV reports discloses that both the vehicles were damaged in the front side. It goes shows that it is the head on collision of both the vehicles. Ex.P23 is the charge sheet filed after investigation filed against the 4 accused and accused No.3 is child in conflict with law and it is stated in the charge sheet that the petitioner was proceeding in his TVS vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and from opposite direction the offending vehicle / Honda Activa was driven by one Mahendra who is Accused No.1 in the middle of the road and it was head on collision and both have sustained injuries including the pillion riders and it is revealed in the course of investigation that the the rider of the offending vehicle did not have valid DL and hence charge sheet is filed against the rider of offending vehicle for the offenses under Sec.181 of IMV Act. In addition charge sheet is filed against the owner of the offending vehicle SCCH 15 9 MVC No.1009/2021 for having given the vehicle for rider without license for the offenses under sec.5 and 180 of IMV Act and charge sheet has also been registered against the owner of the TVS victor vehicle for giving the vehicle to petitioner who was minor at the time of the accident without any DL for the offenses under sec.180, 146 r/w Sec.196 of IMV Act. The fact that both the riders did not have DL and fact that the petitioner was a minor at the time of the accident goes to show that there is negligence on the part of the both riders and the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent of both the vehicles riders the accident occurred. Hence both the riders have equally contributed to the accident. The rider of offending motorcycle contributed 50% of Negligence towards the accident. The Petitioner contributed 50% of negligence towards the accident. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 "Partly in the Affirmative".
12. Issue No.2 and 3: The computation of compensation will have to be decided separately under various heads.
SCCH 15 10 MVC No.1009/2021 MEDICAL OR TREATMENT EXPENSES: The petitioner has produced Ex.P1- Discharge summary which discloses that the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient in Apollo BGS hospital and was admitted as an inpatient from 25.12.2020 to 31.12.2020 and he had sustained type 2 open fracture right femur at mid and distal 1/3 rd volar barton fracture right distal radius. Fracture right 3 rd metacarpal right, right brachial plexus injury, mild SAH, right pneumothorax with right lung contusion with right rib fracture and has produced Ex.P2 - Advance receipts and Ex.P3 & 10 - medical bills and pharmacy bills. The petitioner has also produced Ex.P5 medical reports. Ex.P6 is the discharge summary of Ganga Medical Centre and hospitals Pvt. Ltd., which discloses that the petitioner was admitted on 26.02.2021 and discharged on 06.03.2021 and Ex.P7 & 8 - discharge summaries discloses that the petitioner was admitted on 16.05.2022 and discharged on 25.05.2022 and admitted on 26.06.2023 and discharged on 01.07.2023. As far as the SCCH 15 11 MVC No.1009/2021 medical treatment and expenses is concerned the petitioner is cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respondent and it is suggested that the Apollo hospital final bill is not produced. Except suggesting that some medical bills produced are xerox bills and Ex.P26 is created nothing much is elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1 to disprove the authenticity of the said bills. On the other hand the document discloses that the petitioner has produced inpatient final bill. Hence taking into consideration the medical bills produced the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.8,11,264/- under this head.
13. PAIN AND SUFFERING: As per the medical documents the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries and Ex.P1 - discharge summary discloses that the petitioner has sustained type 2 open fracture right femur at mid and distal 1/3rd volar barton fracture right distal radius, fracture right 3rd metacarpal right brachial plexus injury. It is stated in the petition that injuries sustained and physical impairment has SCCH 15 12 MVC No.1009/2021 caused unbearable pain and due to the same the petitioner is unable perform his day to day activities as prior to the accident. It is not possible to ascertain quantum compensation admissible to the petitioner for pain and sufferings which he actually suffered due to the accidental injuries. Keeping in view the trauma and mental agony suffered by the petitioner and also the treatment and duration of the treatment taken by the petitioner etc., an amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to him towards pain and sufferings. Thus, he is awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- under this head.
14. LOSS OF ACTUAL EARNINGS: In the evidence PW.1 it is submitted that the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient in two hospitals and has undergone surgeries. It is submitted in the evidence of PW.1 that he was aged about 20 years at the time of the accident. However, the charge sheet discloses that the petitioner was the rider of TVS Victor bearing Reg.No.KA-11-L-1047 and he was minor at the time of the accident. The petitioner has produced Ex.P12 - Aadhaar SCCH 15 13 MVC No.1009/2021 card and Ex.P13 - PAN card which discloses that the petitioner was minor as on the date of the accident and he was 17 years old at the time of the accident. It is submitted by the petitioner that he was doing business and earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. However, the fact that the petitioner is a minor at the time of the accident and the fact that the petitioner has not produced any documents to show his income and avocation goes to show that there is no proof to establish the income and avocation of the petitioner. In the absence of any material as to the monthly earnings of the Petitioner it would be proper to assume the monthly earnings of the petitioner as per the notional income as on the date of the accident, as per the guidelines of Lok- Adalat chart. As per the relevant period the notional income is taken as Rs.14,500/- p.m. Taking into consideration that the petitioner due to the injuries might not have been in a position to work for at least 6 months hence, as such the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.14,500 X 6 = 87,000/- under this head.
SCCH 15 14 MVC No.1009/2021
15. LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS DUE TO DISABILITY:
The petitioner has claimed in his affidavit that he has sustained permanent disability and in order to prove the same the petitioner has adduced the evidence of PW.2 who has deposed that the physical impairment of the petitioner is not progressive and will not improve in future. PW.2 - Orthopedic surgeon has deposed that the petitioner had sustained permanent residual physical disability of 32% contributed by right upper limb + 18% by fracture of right femur i.e., 50% of whole body and he has stated that the said estimation is done in compliance of guidelines and gazette notification, issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, GOI. It is also submitted that the petitioner will have to undergo two surgeries for removal of implants from right femur and right wrist. As far as the disability is concerned PW.2 is cross- examined by the learned counsel for the respondent, wherein PW.2 has admitted that he has not treated the petitioner and verified the discharge summary and wound certificate. PW.2 SCCH 15 15 MVC No.1009/2021 has deposed that the petitioner has undergone further treatment and is also suggested for physiotherapy and denied that the disability assessed by him is premature. PW.2 has deposed that petitioner has no sense in his fore arm and wrist. Hence though PW.2 is cross-examined, nothing much is elicited to disprove the disability assessed by him.
16. Accordingly, above mentioned disability can be read in evidence in terms of the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited Vs Union of India. PW.2 has admitted that he has assessed physical disability and not functional disability. Hence, the evidence discloses that the petitioner can continue his work obviously with some difficulties and hence no addition is made towards future prospects. As per the evidence of PW.2 he has assessed the disability at 50% and if the same taken to the whole body it can be reduced to 1/3rd. Hence the disability is taken at 16.6% to the whole body for assessing compensation. As already discussed the age of the petitioner SCCH 15 16 MVC No.1009/2021 as on the date of the accident was 17 years. Therefore, in view of the law, laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the multiplier of '18' is applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of petitioner arising out of his above disability. The loss of future earnings of petitioner due to his above injury and permanent physical disability comes to Rs.5,19,912/- (Rs.14,500/- X 12 X 18 X 16.6%) and the same is awarded to him as compensation under this head.
17. Loss of Amenities: In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the extent of permanent physical disability the petitioner will certainly have some difficulties in future in performing day to day activities. Hence, amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded under this head.
SCCH 15 17 MVC No.1009/2021
18. Attendant's charges, Special diet and Conveyance:
Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries and Ex.P24 travelling bills produced by the petitioner it can be assumed that the petitioner has spent considerable amount towards attendant charges, special diet and conveyance. Hence, the amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded under this head.
19. Future medical expenses: The evidence of PW.2 discloses that the petitioner will have to undergo another two operations and also for removal of implants from right femur and right wrist. Hence, the petitioner is awarded to an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses.
20. TOTAL COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED:
To sum up, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads :
1. Pain, shock & Suffering ₹ 50,000/-
SCCH 15 18 MVC No.1009/2021
2. Loss of amenities ₹ 20,000/-
3. Loss of income during the laid ₹ 87,000/-
up period
4. Attendant's charges, Extra diet, ₹ 20,000/-
and conveyance
5. Medical expenses ₹ 8,11,264/-
6. Loss of Future Income ₹ 5,19,912/-
7. Future medical expenses ₹ 20,000/-
Total ₹15,28,176/-
Thus, totally the Petitioner is awarded compensation of ₹15,28,176/- with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of this petition till the date of realization.
21. Regarding Liability: It is already observed in issue no.1 that it is the case of contributory negligence and both the riders did not have DL at the time of the accident and the petitioner was also minor at the time of the accident. Hence there is negligence in the ratio at 50% - 50% between the petitioner as well as rider of the offending vehicle.
SCCH 15 19 MVC No.1009/2021
22. As far as the liability is concerned the respondent No.2 has got examined the Investigation officer as RW.1. RW.1 in his evidence has deposed that he has conducted the investigation in this case and on 12.01.2021 he has issued Sec.133 Notice to the RC owner Susheela of vehicle bearing reg No. KA-10-EA-6519 and obtained the medical certificate of the petitioner to show he was minor at the time of the accident and has filed charge sheet against the riders and owners of the both the vehicles since, both the vehicle riders did not have driving license and petitioner was also minor at the time of the accident.
23. In addition the official of respondent No.2 is also examined and he has stated that since the petitioner was not having driving license and was minor and since the offending vehicle rider did not have driving license, there is breach of policy conditions and the petitioner himself is solely negligent and tort feasor. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 in the course of his arguments has relied on the decision laid down SCCH 15 20 MVC No.1009/2021 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11757 of 2025, dated: 24.04.2025, wherein it has been observed that owner failed to prove that the vehicle was entrusted to a person having valid driving license in a such case the owner will be liable to pay compensation and the insurer is absolved from indemnifying the ground that the person was not having valid driving license.
24. In addition learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also relied on the decision in MFA No.6154/2019 (MV-D), dated: 14.12.2023, between Hemalatha @ Hema @ Hemavathi & others Vs. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., and another, wherein it was observed that without having driving license is breach of policy conditions within the meaning of Sec.149(2)(a)(ii) of IMV Act and hence the tribunal was justified in exonerating the insurer on the ground that there is fundamental breach of policy condition.
25. In addition the case relied in 2020 ACJ 3000, between Beli Ram Vs. Rajinder Kumar and another, wherein SCCH 15 21 MVC No.1009/2021 also similar observations is made holding that insurance company was exonerated from the liability in the case of not holding driving license of the driver. The principal of law laid down in the said decisions is also squarely applicable to the present case. Hence, the respondent No.2 insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and is not liable indemnify the insured. Therefore, respondent No.1 herself is liable to pay 50% of the compensation amount to the petitioner. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 and 3 "Partly in the Affirmative".
26. Issue No.4: In view of my findings on Issues No. 1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent No.1 U/S 166 of M.V. Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
SCCH 15 22 MVC No.1009/2021
The claim petition filed by the
petitioner against respondent No.2 is hereby dismissed.
The Petitioner is entitled for Compensation of ₹15,28,176/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of Award amount.
The Respondent No.1 is liable to pay 50% of the compensation amount out of the total compensation amount to the Petitioner.
The Respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the Award amount and interest within 60 days from the date of the Award.
Out of the compensation amount awarded to the Petitioner, 75% of the award amount with accrued interest shall be released to the Petitioner by way of E-
payment and after proper identification. The remaining 25% award amount shall be deposited as F.D. in the name of the SCCH 15 23 MVC No.1009/2021 Petitioner in any Nationalized or Scheduled bank for a period of three years.
The Advocate fee is fixed at ₹1,000/-.
Draw Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 1st day of September, 2025) (RESHMA JANE RODRIGUES) XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge, ACJM, Court of Small Causes & Member, MACT-15, Bengaluru.
Annexure Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioner :
P.W.1 : Sri. Vineeth Kumar S PW.2 : Dr. S. Ramachandra
Documents marked as Exhibits for the Petitioner :
Ex.P1 Discharge summary Ex.P2 Advance receipts Ex.P3 Medical bills Ex.P4 Prescriptions Ex.P5 Medical reports Ex.P6 to 8 Discharge summaries Ex.P9 Estimations Ex.P10 Medical bills Ex.P11 X-rays SCCH 15 24 MVC No.1009/2021 Ex.P12 Aadhaar card Ex.P13 PAN card Ex.P14 FIR Ex.P15 Complaint Ex.P16 Spot mahazar with sketch Ex.P17 & 18 Vehicle seizer mahazars Ex.P19 & 20 IMV reports Ex.P21 & 22 Statements Ex.P23 Charge sheet Ex.P24 Traveling bills Ex.P25 Outpatient record Ex.P26 X-rays Ex.P27 CT scan films
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Respondent :
RW-1 : Sri. Siddaiah RW-2 : Sri. Santhosh
Documents marked as Exhibits for the Respondents:
Ex.R1 Authorization letter
Ex.R2 Copy of insurance policy
(RESHMA JANE RODRIGUES)
XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge,
ACJM,Court of Small Causes &
Member, MACT-15, Bengaluru.