[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
Raghavendra.K vs Somashekara.A on 5 June, 2025
KABC020108152023
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 05th day of June - 2025
MVC No. 2415/2023
PETITIONER/S: Sri K Raghavendra
S/o late S V Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 66 years,
R/at No.659, 3rd cross, 4th main,
BEML layout, 3rd stage,
Rajarajeshwari nagar,
Bengaluru 560098.
(By Sri.B.M. Chandra Shekara,
Adv.)
V/s.
RESPONDENTS: 1. Sri Somashekara A
S/o Appajichari,
R/at: H Gollahalli, Vidya Peeta post,
Kengeri hobli, Bengaluru 560060.
SCCH-17 2 MVC No.2415/2023
(By Sri. Nagarjun Deekshith, Adv.,)
2. HDFC IRGO General Insurance
No.25/1, 2nd floor,
Shankaranarayana building,
No.2, M G road, Bengaluru 560001.
(By Sri. A N Hegde, Adv.)
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition U/Sec.166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act by claiming compensation for the
injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that
occurred on 31-10-2022.
2. The petition averments in brief are as under:
On 31-10-2022 at about 8.15 p.m. the petitioner
was proceeding by riding his Scooter bearing No.
KA.41.EE.0740 near Kengeri Satellite town, 4 th cross,
park road, near Railway station on the left side of the
road, at that time the rider of Scooter bearing No.
KA.41.ES.3607 has ridden the same at high speed, in a
rash and negligent manner, came from Hoysala circle
SCCH-17 3 MVC No.2415/2023and dashed against the Scooter of the petitioner and
caused the accident. Due to the impact, the petitioner fell
down and sustained grievous injuries.
Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was
shifted to Shreya hospital, Kengeri and thereafter was
shifted to Ranga Doria hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he
took treatment as an inpatient and also underwent
surgery. Petitioner has spent more than Rs.4,78,000/-
towards medical expenses, conveyance, food,
nourishment and other incidental charges.
Prior to the accident, petitioner was very hale and
healthy, aged about 66 years and working in Kotal
Mahindra Life Insurance Agency Partner and earning
Rs.42,600/- per month. Due to the accidental injuries
petitioner is not able to do his work as he was doing prior
to the said accident and suffered loss of income.
The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent
No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly
SCCH-17 4 MVC No.2415/2023severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
Hence, prays to award compensation of Rs.17,88,000/-
with interest.
3. After service of summons, both the
respondents have appeared before the court through its
respective counsels and filed separate written statement.
Respondent No.1 – owner has appeared through his
counsel and filed written statement by denying the cause
and manner of accident, injuries sustained by the
petitioner and also the amount spent towards medical
expenses. Further has denied the age, occupation and
income of the petitioner. Accordingly prays to dismiss the
claim petition against him.
Respondent No.2 – insurance company appeared
through its counsel and filed written statement by
admitting the issuance of policy in respect of the Scooter
bearing No. KA.41.ES.3607 and the liability of this
respondent, if any, is subject to terms and conditions of
SCCH-17 5 MVC No.2415/2023
the policy. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is
highly exorbitant and without any basis. Further
contended that, there is no compliance of Sec.134(c) &
158 of MV Act. Further contended that, at the time of
accident, the minor was riding the motor cycle who is not
having driving license hence, this respondent is not liable
to pay compensation to the petitioner. Accordingly, 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, he has sustained grievous in-
juries due to the actionable negligent
riding of motor cycle bearing
Reg.No.KA.41.ES.3607 by its rider, in
RTA took place on 31.10.2022 at about
8015 p.m., near Kengeri Satellite town,
4th cross, Park road, Railway station,
Bengaluru?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled
for compensation? If so, what amount
and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
SCCH-17 6 MVC No.2415/2023
5. In order to prove the claim petition, the petitioner
examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the
documents at Ex.P.1 to 14. Further, examined Dr. B
Ramesh, Orthopedic surgeon at Victoria hospital as PW.2
and MRI at Ranga Dorai hospital as PW.2 & 3 and got
marked Ex.P15 to 20.
On the other hand respondent No.2 insurance
company examined its official as RW.1 and got marked
the documents at Ex.R1 to R8.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the materials
that are available on record.
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 his affidavit in lieu of-
SCCH-17 7 MVC No.2415/2023
examination in-chief, which is considered as P.W.1. In
support of his case, he has produced true copies of FIR,
complaint, further statement of victim, spot mahazar,
wound certificate, IMV report and charge sheet, which
are marked under Ex.P.1 to P7.
9. On perusal of Ex.P1- FIR which is registered on
the basis of Ex.P2 first information given by one
Ravikiran who is the son of the petitioner by alleging the
rash and negligent riding by the rider of Scooter bearing
No. KA.41.ES.3607. Thereafter the investigating officer
has conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P4 which
discloses that the accident spot is in the middle of the
main road. As per Ex.P.4 the petitioner was proceeding in
his motorcycle bearing No.KA-41-EE-0740 in the main
road and the rider of Scooter bearing No. KA.41.ES.3607
was coming from cross road while entering into the main
road dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner
without observing the vehicles which are moving in the
main road.
SCCH-17 8 MVC No.2415/2023
10. The contents of mahazar as per Ex.P4
establishes the negligence of rider of Scooter bearing No.
KA.41.ES.3607. The Ex.P6 is the IMV report wherein the
offending motorcycle Scooter bearing No. KA.41.ES.3607
has got damages in its front and rear left side where as
the motorcycle of the petitioner/damages in his front left
side. On perusal of the Ex.P.6, it is clear that the
accident is not due to any mechanical defect of the
vehicles and the offending Scooter bearing No.
KA.41.ES.3607 has got damages in its front shape and
scratches in its rare left side body and the motor cycle of
the petitioner has got damages in its front left side. Thus
it is evident that the rider of Scooter bearing No.
KA.41.ES.3607 by riding his motorcycle in a rash and
negligent manner while entering into the main road
dashed against the left side of the motorcycle of the
petitioner. The contents of spot mahazar and IMV report
helped the petitioner to prove the alleged negligence of
rider of Scooter bearing No. KA.41.ES.3607.
SCCH-17 9 MVC No.2415/2023
11. In spite of sufficient opportunity the
respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending Scooter
bearing No. KA.41.ES.3607 even though appeared and
filed written statement does not chosen to lead any
evidence by denying the alleged negligence. Wherefore in
the absence of any cogent evidence which could rebut the
assertions made by PW-1 on oath supported by Ex.P-7
which is the charge sheet and the documents annexed
therewith, this court should not have any impediment to
conclude that the said documents prima-facie suffice to
hold that accident occurred due to rash and actionable
negligence on the part of the rider of the Scooter bearing
No. KA.41.ES.3607. The view taken by this Court that
the police records are prima- facie proof in support of the
case of the petitioner, is supported by the decision
rendered in Kishan Gopal and another Vs. Lala and
others reported in 2013 (4) T.A.C 5 (S.C.), wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held thus:
In view of the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal should have
considered both oral and documentary evidence referred to
SCCH-17 10 MVC No.2415/2023supra and appreciated the same in the proper perspective and
recorded the finding on the contentious issue No. 1 & 2 in the
affirmative. But it has recorded the finding in the negative on
the above issues by adverting to certain statements of
evidence of AW-1 and referring to certain alleged
discrepancies in the FIR without appreciating entire evidence
of AW-1 and AW-2 on record properly and also not assigned
valid reasons in not accepting their testimony. The Tribunal
should have taken into consideration the pleadings of the
parties and legal evidence on record in its entirety and held
that the accident took place on 19.07.1992, due to which
Tikaram sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the
same and the case was registered by the Uniara Police Station
under Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC read with Sections 133
and 181 of the M.V. Act against the first and second
respondents. The registration of FIR and filing of the charge-
sheet against respondent Nos.1 & 2 are not in dispute,
therefore, the Tribunal should have no option but to accept the
entire evidence on record and recorded the finding on the
contentious issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the appellants.
(Emphasis supplied by me)
12. It is necessary to reassert that in a claim for
compensation filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, the claimant is expected to prove the inc ident
on basis of principle of preponderance of probabilities and the view
taken by this Court is fortified by the decision rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kusum and others V/s Satbir and others
which is reported in 2011 SAR (CIVIL) 319. Further the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road
Transport Corporation and others reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530 has
SCCH-17 11 MVC No.2415/2023
observed that, it is 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 are merely required to
establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The
standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied.
Further the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in National Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishnappa and another reported in 2001 ACJ 1105,
where the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka considering the fact that
the rider of the offending vehicle was not examined to prove any
contributory negligence on the part of scooterist held that the
accident had occurred due to rash or negligent driving by the rider of
the offending van. Even here in this case the IO, as already
observed, has clearly opined that the accident occurred
only due to the fault of the rider of Scooter bearing No.
KA.41.ES.3607 and he was charge sheeted.
13. The respondent No.1 insurance company
examined its official as RW.1. As admitted by the RW.1
he has no personal knowledge about the accident and his
evidence is based on the documents. Thus the
SCCH-17 12 MVC No.2415/2023
documents shows the negligence of rider of Scooter
bearing No. KA.41.ES.3607. Thereby the evidence of
RW.1 is not helpful for the respondents to disprove the
case of the petitioner in respect of the negligence of rider
of Scooter bearing No. KA.41.ES.3607.
14. Further Ex.P7 charge sheet is filed against the
owner of Scooter bearing No. KA.41.ES.3607 for the
offence punishable under Sec. 5(1) and 180 of IMV Act.
By producing these documents, the petitioner prima-facie
established the occurrence of accident and also the
alleged negligence of the rider of the Scooter bearing No.
KA.41.ES.3607.
15. The alleged accident was on 31-10-2022 but the
FIR was lodged on 05-11-2022 thereby it is evident that
the FIR was lodged after the lapse of 6 days of the
accident. To overcome the said delay the petitioner relied
on Ex.P2 complaint and Ex.P18 police intimation and
Ex.P19 MLC register extract. As per Ex.P.18 and 19 the
SCCH-17 13 MVC No.2415/2023
petitioner admitted to their hospital on 01-11-2022 at
about 7.00 p.m. with the history of RTA and intially
petitioner was taken to Shreya Hospital and thereafter
came to this hospital. Thereby, the contents of Ex.P.18
and P.19 establishes that soon after the accident the
petitioner was admitted in the hospital, thereby on the
basis of the information available in Ex.P.18 and P.19 it
can be held that there is no unwanted delay in
registering the FIR.
16. In view of the ratio laid down in the authorities
referred to above and applying the settled principle of law
to the case at hand, which is further supported by the
oral and documentary evidence adduced by PW-1, this
Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the accident
leading to this case indeed occurred due to the actionable
negligence on the part of the rider of the Scooter bearing
No. KA.41.ES.3607 resulting in petitioner sustaining
injuries. Thus, the allegation of rider of the Scooter
bearing No. KA.41.ES.3607 riding his motor cycle in
SCCH-17 14 MVC No.2415/2023
rash and negligent manner stands established.
Accordingly, issue No.1 answered in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2:
17. As already held herein above, the petitioner
has proved that he has sustained injuries in RTA which
is caused by the vehicle belonging to respondent No.1.
Hence, the petitioner is entitle for compensation. Now the
quantum of compensation is to be ascertained on
different heads.
a) PAIN AND AGONY:- At the time of alleged
accident the petitioner was aged about 66 years. The
petitioner has not produced Aadhaar card. In order to
prove the same, petitioner has produced PAN card and
Driving license as per Ex.P13 & 14. On perusal of the
same it reveals the date of birth of the petitioner as 30-
09-1956, accident was occurred on 31-10-2022. Hence
as on the date of accident petitioner was aged about 66
years and the same is considered as the age of the
petitioner. In the petition itself he has averred that
SCCH-17 15 MVC No.2415/2023
immediately after the accident he was shifted to Ranga
Dorai hospital, Bangalore, wherein he took treatment as
an inpatient. As per the discharge summary marked at
Ex.P12 the petitioner was admitted as inpatient from
01-11-2022 to 16-11-2022 and has sustained central
dislocation of left hip with fracture of acetabular floor,
fracture proximal humerus left, newly detected
hyerptension and BPH and also underwent procedure of
closed reduction and K-wire fixation proximal humerus.
By considering the nature of the injuries and period he
spent to overcome the pain and other allied effects of the
accident Rs.70,000/- may be awarded to the petitioner
under this head.
b) Medical expenses: The petitioner has produced
medical bills as per Ex.P10 amounting to Rs.2,81,370/-
which are supported with medical prescriptions marked
at Ex.P9. The medical bills are not seriously disputed by
the respondents and no grounds are made out to
disbelieve these bills. Looking to the facts and
SCCH-17 16 MVC No.2415/2023
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.2,81,400/-.
c) Disability;- To prove the nature of injuries
sustained by him the petitioner has examined Dr. B
Ramesh, Orthopaedic Surgeon at Victoria Hospital as
PW.2 and through him clinical notes and X-ray were got
marked at Ex.P15 & 16. According to the evidence of this
witness the petitioner has sustained fracture of
Acetabulum with central dislocation of left hip, fracture
of superior and interior rami left pubic bone, fracture of
left iliac bone and fracture of left proximal humerus and
he underwent procedure of K wire fixation of left
humerus. This aspect is not impeached during the
course of cross-examination. Further PW.2 has assessed
the permanent physical disability of left lower limb at
42% and whole body disability at 27%.
It is necessary to note that the loss of future earning
capacity cannot be presumed and has to be proved with
SCCH-17 17 MVC No.2415/2023
cogent evidence. But interestingly the petitioner though
claims that he is unable to do any work and has become
permanently disabled he has not put in any efforts to
show that the earning capacity of the petitioner is lost or
reduced.
At the time of cross-examination also the PW.1
admitted that he is a retired bank manager and presently
getting Rs.40,000/- to 50,000/- pension. Further even
though it is claimed that he was working as partner in
Kotak Mahindra Insurance Agency, no evidence is placed
by the petitioner in this regard. Thereby, as admitted by
the petitioner his pension is not stopped or reduced after
the accident. Thereby, it is evident that the petitioner has
not sustained any functional disability which resulted in
reduction of income of the petitioner.
In the judgment reported in 2020(4) KCCR 2621
between Sri Nandish K. V/s United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. & another wherein it is held that no compensation
could be awarded towards the loss of earning capacity if
SCCH-17 18 MVC No.2415/2023
physical disability do not effect claimant’s capacity to
work. The answers given by the PW.1 at the time of
cross-examination evidentiates that the petitioner is
continuously getting the pension and no disability is
caused which effects his earning capacity. Hence, this
court has no option but to hold that the petitioner has
not suffered any permanent physical disability which has
resulted in reduction of his salary and hence he is not
entitled for any compensation under this head.
(E) TOWARDS LOSS OF INCOME DURING LAID UP
PERIOD:
The petitioner has not made out any evidence or
grounds to hold that he sustained the loss of income
during the laid down period. Hence, in the absence of
any evidence, petitioner is not entitled for any
amount under the head of loss of income during laid
up period.
(F) FOOD, NOURISHMENT AND CONVEYANCE; As per
Ex.P12 discharge summaries, the petitioner took
treatment as an inpatient at Shreya hospital from 31-10-
SCCH-17 19 MVC No.2415/2023
2022 to 01-11-2022 and also at Rangadore Memorial
hospital from 01-11-2022 to 16-11-2022 totally for a
period of 17 days. As per wound certificate marked at
Ex.P5 the petitioner has sustained simple as well as
grievous injuries. By considering the nature of the
injuries and 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.40,000/- towards
food, nourishment and conveyance.
(G) ATTENDANT CHARGES: The petitioner sustained
grievous injuries in the accident. The petitioner has spent
17 days in the hospital and there is no evidence or
pleading in this regard to show that the petitioner is in
need of attendant. But by considering the nature of the
fracture as discussed above, it may be considered to
award attendant charges at Rs.1,000/- per day i.e.,
Rs.17,000/- in total as the petitioner has spent 17 days
in the hospital.
SCCH-17 20 MVC No.2415/2023
(H) Towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of
life:
The petitioner admitted to the hospitals for the
injuries sustained by him, which might certainly have
deprived him of the basic comforts and enjoyment.
Therefore, it is just and proper to award a reasonable
sum of Rs.60,000/- under this head.
Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation
under the following heads:
a. Towards pain and agony Rs. 70,000/-
b. Towards medical expenses Rs. 2,81,400/-
c. Towards loss of income during Nil
laid up period
d. Towards disability Nil
e. Towards food, nourishment and Rs. 40,000/-
conveyance
f. Towards attendant charges Rs. 17,000/-
g. Towards loss of amenities Rs. 60,000/-
Total Rs. 4,68,400/-
18. Liability:- According to the petitioner the
respondent No.1 & 2 are the owner and insurer of the
SCCH-17 21 MVC No.2415/2023Scooter bearing No. KA.41.ES.3607. The respondent No.2
in its objection statement has admitted the issuance of
policy to the said vehicle and the policy was in force at
the time of accident.
19. The respondent No.1 insurance company has
taken specific contention that as per Ex.P7 charge sheet,
the rider of offending Scooter bearing No. KA.41.ES.3607
at the time of accident was minor and was not having
valid license as such, it cannot indemnify the liability of
the respondent No.2 insurance company.
20. In respect of this, on perusal of Ex.P7 head of
charge sheet, the offences punishable under Sec.5(1) and
180 of IMV Act is invoked against the owner of Scooter
bearing No. KA.41.ES.3607 and has also invoked Sec.338
and 279 of IPC against the rider of the offending Scooter
bearing No. KA.41.ES.3607. In the charge sheet one
Nikhil Shekhar is shown as the rider of Scooter bearing
No. KA.41.ES.3607 at the time of accident and he was
minor at the time of accident and also stated that the said
SCCH-17 22 MVC No.2415/2023Nikhil Shekhar was not having driving license to ride the
said vehicle at the time of accident. The Ex.P7 charge
sheet was filed against the respondent No.1 owner herein
as he allowed the minor to ride the motor cycle without
DL. Thus it is evident that the respondent No.1 being the
owner of Scooter bearing No. KA.41.ES.3607 allowed
minor to ride the motor cycle. Thereby in the Ex.P7
charge sheet necessary sections are also invoked against
the respondent No.1 for allowing the person who has no
driving license and also a minor to ride the Scooter
bearing No. KA.41.ES.3607.
21. The respondent No.1 owner after service of
summons appeared through his counsel and also filed
written statement, but the respondent No.1-owner has
not led any evidence in support of the contentions taken
by him in the written statement. The respondent No.1-
owner neither adduced any evidence nor produced any
contrary documents to show that the rider of Scooter
bearing No. KA.41.ES.3607 was having driving license at
SCCH-17 23 MVC No.2415/2023
the time of accident and he was not minor. Thus, the
respondent No.2 insurance company successfully
established the violation of policy condition.
22. By the evidence of RW.1 in corroboration with
contents of Ex.P7 charge sheet, the respondent No.2
insurance company successfully discharged its burden
that the rider of the Scooter bearing No. KA.41.ES.3607
was not having valid DL at the time of accident and
thereby the condition of the policy is violated.
23. The respondent No.2 insurance company
successfully discharged the burden and proved the
violation of conditions of policy as the rider of Scooter
bearing No. KA.41.ES.3607 was not having valid DL at
the time of accident. Hence, next point needs to be
considered is to whom the liability has to be fastened.
24. In the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in MFA no.7683/2014 C/w MFA Cross
Objection No. 54/2020 dated 28-05-2024 wherein it has
held as follows:
SCCH-17 24 MVC No.2415/2023
“9. For applying the principles of pay
and recovery as per sub-sections (1) & (2) of
Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, if any of the conditions is violated,
though Insurance Company can be
exonerated from the liability, but the order
of pay and recovery can be made. But in
the present case, while considering Sub-
Clause (ii) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 149
of the Motor Vehicles Act, in the case of a
minor boy of 16 years old who was riding
the vehicle and caused the accident, this
proviso is not applicable so as to say that
terms and conditions of the Insurance
Company are violated. Where a minor boy
under the age of 16 years cannot be said to
be a qualified person to apply for driving
licence, it cannot also be categorized that
he is not duly licenced so as to come within
the ambit of sub-clause (ii) of sub-section
(2) Section 149 of the MV Act when a minor
boy of 16 years old inherently is not a
qualified person so as to apply for driving
licence. Therefore, the principle of pay and
recovery is not applicable in case minor boy
drives the vehicle and causes the accident.
Hence, the prayer of pay and recovery is
hereby rejected.
10. Respondent No.4-Mohammad
Mustapa being the owner of the motor cycle
has handed over the motor cycle to the
minor boy. Hence, in this regard, owner of
the vehicle namely, Mohammad Mustapa
alone shall pay the compensation to the
claimants and not the Insurance Company.
Hence, judgment and award of the Tribunal
SCCH-17 25 MVC No.2415/2023
fixing the liability on the Insurance
Company is set aside”.
25. There is no dispute that at the time of accident
the vehicle was covered with insurance. But the violation
of the condition of insurance policy is stands established.
As per Ex.R1 insurance policy it contains the condition
that it covers the risk provided the person driving the
vehicle holds an effective and valid driving licence at the
time of accident and is not disqualified from holding such
licence.
26. In this case, the respondent No.1 owner of the
Scooter bearing No. KA.41.ES.3607 not adduced any
evidence by showing that the rider of offending vehicle
was having valid driving licence at the time of accident.
Thus, it is proved that on the date of accident, the rider of
Scooter bearing No. KA.41.ES.3607 was not having
driving licence and also he was a minor. Thereby the
conduct of respondent No.1 allowing the minor person to
drive the vehicle without having DL is a fundamental
SCCH-17 26 MVC No.2415/2023
breach of policy condition and thereby the insurance
company cannot be fastened with liability. The
respondent No.1 being the owner cannot take the benefit
of his own wrong. Under such circumstances, the
insurance company cannot be fastened with liability of
pay and recover when there is clear breach of policy
conditions and liability to pay compensation is on the
respondent No.1- owner. Hence, the respondent No.1
owner is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
The petitioner is entitle for compensation with interest at
the rate of 6% p.a., Accordingly, this issue answered in
the affirmative.
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.
SCCH-17 27 MVC No.2415/2023
The petitioner is entitled for total
compensation amount of Rs.4,68,400/-
(Rupees Four lakh sixty eight thousand
four hundred only) with interest at the rate
of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the
realization from respondents.
The respondent No.1 owner is directed
to deposit the compensation amount within
60 days from the date of this order.
The case against respondent No.2-
insurance company stands dismissed.
Considering the quantum of amount
awarded to petitioner, it is ordered to release
the entire amount in his favour.
Advocate fee is fixed at 1,500/-.
Draw up award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer,
corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on
this the 5th day of June, 2025)
(Kanchi Mayanna Goutam)
XIX ADDL.JUDGE
Court of Small Causes & MACT.,
Bengaluru.
SCCH-17 28 MVC No.2415/2023
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined for petitioners:
PW.1 Sri K Raghavendra PW.2 Dr B Ramesh PW.3 Sri Gangadhar
List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioner/s:
Ex.P1 : FIR Ex.P2 : Complaint Ex.P3 : Further statement of victim Ex.P4 : Spot mahazar Ex.P5 : Wound certificate Ex.P6 : IMV report Ex.P7 : Charge sheet Ex.P8 : RC Ex.P9 : Medical prescriptions Ex.P10 : Medical bills Ex.P11 : Advance receipts Ex.P12 : Discharge summaries
Ex.P13 & 14: Notarized copies of PAN card and driving
license
Ex.P15 : Clinical notes
Ex.P16 : X-ray
Ex.P17 : Authorization letter
Ex.P18 & 19: MLC and police intimation
Ex.P20 : Inpatient case details
SCCH-17 29 MVC No.2415/2023
List of witnesses examined for Respondents:
RW.1 : Sri Suresh Gukanti List of documents marked on behalf of the Respondents: Ex.R1 : Insurance policy with conditions
Ex.R2 to 5 : Notices and postal receipts
Ex.R6 to 8 : IMV notices and reply
(Kanchi Mayanna Goutam)
XIX ADDL.JUDGE
Court of Small Causes & MACT.,
Bengaluru.
Digitally signed
by KANCHI
KANCHI MAYANNA
MAYANNA GOUTAM
GOUTAM Date:
2025.06.10
15:08:03 +0530
[ad_2]
Source link