[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
Venkatesh K vs Dhanasekaran D on 12 June, 2025
KABC020201202021
BEFORE THE COURT OF 10th ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
AT: BENGALURU
(SCCH-16)
Present: Sri. Mohammed Yunus Athani
B.A.,LL.B.,
X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.3602/2021
Dated this 12th day of June, 2025
Petitioner: Venkatesh K. S/o Krishnappa,
Aged about 33 years,
R/o No.2/883, Andevanapalli Village,
Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu.
(Sri A. Muniraju, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents: 1. Dhanasekaran D. S/o Dayalan,
Major, R/o No.59, Erikarai Street,
Nelvoy, Pulavanpadi,
Tiruvannamalai,
Tamil Nadu - 606 903.
(Ex-parte)
2. The Royal Sundaram General
Insurance Company Ltd.,
2 MVC No.3602/2021
No.56/1, 2nd Floor, 9th Main road,
5th Block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru - 41.
(Deleted as per order dated
28-06-2022)
3. Shriram General Insurance
Company Ltd.,
35, 3rd Floor, Ambika Plaza,
1st Main, 4th N Block,
Dr. Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru - 560 010.
(Sri K. M. Ravi, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- from
the respondents, on account of grievous injuries sustained
by the petitioner in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 20-02-2021 the petitioner was riding his
motorcycle bearing Reg. No.TN-70-D-5479 from Hosur to
Malur town, slowly, cautiously, on the left side of Hosur-
Malur road, by wearing helmet. On the way, at about 3.30
3 MVC No.3602/2021p.m., at H. Hosakote Gate, Malur Taluk, Kolar District, the
driver of Canter vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN-25-AS-3315
came from H. Hosakote side at high speed, in rash and
negligent manner and dashed violently against the
motorcycle of the petitioner. Due to the said impact, the
petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over
the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to
Medcare Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as
an in-patient. Earlier to the accident, he was working as
submersible mechanic and was earning sum of Rs.25,000/-
per month. But, due to the accidental injuries, he has
become permanently disabled and thereby lost his earning
capacity. The Malur Police have registered the case against
the driver of the said canter vehicle for the offences
punishable under Section 279 and 337 of I.P.C. The
respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.3 is the
insurer of the offending vehicle. Hence, they are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
4 MVC No.3602/2021Therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition and award
compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with interest.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the
respondent No.3 has appeared through its counsel and
filed the written statement. Whereas, the respondent No.1
did not choose to appear and remained absent. Hence, the
respondent No.1 is placed as ex-parte.
4. The respondent No.3 in its written statement has
denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has
admitted the issuance of commercial vehicle package policy
in favour of respondent No.1 in respect of canter bearing
Reg. No.TN-25-AS-3315 and its validity, as on the date of
accident. It has contended that, the person driving the
vehicle has no relation in force on the date of accident to
drive the vehicle and the driver of the insured vehicle was
not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the
offending canter vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN-25-AS-3315 at
5 MVC No.3602/2021
the time of accident. The owner of the offending vehicle
knowingly entrusted the vehicle to the person who was not
having valid and effective driving licence to drive the said
Canter vehicle and thereby has committed the breach of
contract and violated the terms and conditions of the policy.
Hence, the respondent No.1 is liable to pay compensation to
the petitioner and respondent No.3 insurance company has
no liability to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
Further it is contended that, the insured canter vehicle
bearing No.TN-25-AS-3315 has no permit to ply the vehicle in
a public place and the same was used without having valid
permit and jurisdictional police have filed charge-sheet
under Section 66(1) of Motor Vehicles Act and in violation of
the policy condition and also the Motor Vehicles Act. It seeks
protection under Section 147 and 149 of Motor Vehicles Act.
It has contended that, the petition is bad for non compliance
of provision under Sections 134(c) and 158(6) of Motor
Vehicles Act. It has denied the involvement of the insured
6 MVC No.3602/2021
vehicle and it was driven in a rash and negligent manner in
the alleged accident. It has denied the age, income and
avocation of the petitioner, injuries sustained, medical
expenses incurred and treatment taken by him. It has
contended that, the accident in question has not occurred on
account of rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle.
The said vehicle was driven by its driver very slowly, carefully
and cautiously. It has occurred due to the negligent riding of
the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.TN-70-D-5479 by the
petitioner and he was not wearing helmet while riding the
motorcycle at the time of accident. Further it is contended
that, the owner and insurer of the scooter bearing Reg.
No.TN-70-D-5479 are also necessary and proper parties to
the case and without impleading the said parties, the case is
not maintainable. Hence, the petition against this
respondent is liable to be dismissed. Further, it has sought
permission to contest even on behalf of respondent No.1, as
per Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The compensation
7 MVC No.3602/2021
claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. For the above
denials and contentions, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the
following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he has
sustained grievous injuries in the road
traffic accident, alleged to have occurred
on 20-02-2021 at about 3.30 p.m., due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the Canter, bearing registration No. TN-
25-AS-3315 ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to
compensation? If so, what is the quantum
and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?
8 MVC No.3602/2021
6. In order to prove his case, the petitioner has got
examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 20 documents
as Ex.P.1 to 20. Further, he has got examined one more
witness namely Dr. Prabhakaran D., as P.W.2 and closed his
side. On the other hand, the respondent No.3 has examined
the retired ASI of Malur Police Station and its Legal
Manager as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and got marked 6 documents
as Ex.R.1 to 6 and closed its side.
7. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and
perused the entire material placed on record.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative
Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative
Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the
following:
REASONS
9 MVC No.3602/2021
9. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioner that, on
20-02-2021, at about 3.30 p.m., when the petitioner was
riding his motorcycle bearing Reg. No.TN-70-D-5479, from
Hosur to Malur town, slowly, cautiously, on the left side of
Hosur-Malur road, by wearing helmet and when he was at
H. Hosakote Gate, Malur Taluk, Kolar District, the driver of
Canter vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN-25-AS-3315, drove the
same from H. Hosakote side, at high speed, in rash and
negligent manner and dashed violently against the
motorcycle of the petitioner. Due to the said impact, the
petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over
the body. Further it is contended that, earlier to the
accident, he was working as submersible mechanic and was
earning sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. But, due to the
accidental injuries, he has become permanently disabled
and thereby lost his earning capacity.
10. In order to prove his case, the petitioner has
examined himself as P.W.1 by filing examination-in-chief
10 MVC No.3602/2021
affidavit, wherein he has reiterated the entire averments
made in the petition. Further, in support of his oral
evidence, the petitioner has got marked total 20 documents
as Ex.P.1 to 20. Out of the said documents, Ex.P.1 is true
copy of F.I.R., and first information statement, Ex.P.2 is true
copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P.3 is true copy of notice under
Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act, Ex.P.4 is true copy of
reply to notice issued under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles
Act, Ex.P.5 is true copy of Motor Vehicle Accident report,
Ex.P.6 is true copy of wound certificate, Ex.P.7 is true copy
of charge-sheet, Ex.P.8 is discharge summary, Ex.P.9 is drug
list, Ex.P.10 are scanning reports (total 3), Ex.P.11 is final bill,
Ex.P.12 are advance receipts (total 7), Ex.P.13 are receipts
(total 4), Ex.P.14 are ambulance bills (total 5), Ex.P.15 are
medical bills, Ex.P.16 is notarized copy of Aadhar card,
Ex.P.17 is notarized copy of family card, Ex.P.18 is notarized
copy of Election ID card and Ex.P.19 and 20 are case-sheets
(total 2).
11 MVC No.3602/2021
11. On meticulously going through the above police
documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 7, prima-facia it reveals
that, the accident in question has taken place due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver of offending Canter
vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN-25-AS-3315 and dashing the
same to on coming motorcycle of the petitioner bearing
No.TN-70-D-5479. Due to said impact the petitioner has fell
down on the road and sustained grievous injuries all over
the body. The investigation officer in his final report,
marked as Ex.P.7, has clearly stated that, the said accident
has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of offending Canter vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN-25-
AS-3315.
12. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that, in the
present case, the date, time and place of accident,
involvement of offending Canter vehicle bearing Reg.
No.TN-25-AS-3315 in the accident, issuance of insurance
policy by the respondent No.3 in respect of said vehicle and
12 MVC No.3602/2021
its validity as on the date of accident, are not in dispute.
Further, the oral and documentary evidence placed on
record by the petitioner has remained undisputed by the
owner of offending vehicle/Respondent No.1, as he did not
choose to appear and contest the case of the petitioner.
Whereas, the respondent No.3 insurance company has
specifically denied the above averred facts and
circumstances of the accident and has taken specific
defence that, the alleged accident has occurred solely due
to rash and negligent riding of the petitioner and there was
no fault on the part of driver of the offending canter vehicle
in the said incident. Further it is contended that, the Canter
vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN-25-AS-3315 has been falsely
implicated in the said accident by the petitioner, in collusion
with the Police. But, the respondent No.3 has failed to
establish the said contentions. Except the self serving
statement of the representative/Legal Manager of the
respondent No.3 insurance company, there is absolutely no
13 MVC No.3602/2021
other oral or documentary evidence produced by the
respondent No.3 to establish the said contentions. Even,
nothing with respect to same has been deposed by the
R.W.1, who is none other than the investigation officer, who
has conducted the investigation with respect to accident in
question and foisted charge-sheet against the driver of
offending Canter vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN-25-AS-3315.
On the other hand, the oral and documentary evidence
placed on record by the petitioner clearly establishes that,
the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of offending Canter vehicle bearing
Reg. No.TN-25-AS-3315, from the opposite direction and
dashing the same to on coming motorcycle of the petitioner
bearing No.TN-70-D-5479. Further it reveals that, due to
said impact the petitioner has fell down on the road and
sustained grievous injuries to his right leg and other parts
of the body. Though, the learned counsel for respondent
No.3 has cross-examined P.W.1 in length, nothing worth
14 MVC No.3602/2021
has been elicited from his mouth which creates doubt on
the veracity of his evidence or which establishes that, the
said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent
riding of the petitioner himself or there was any
contributory negligence on his part in the cause of accident.
Further, the petitioner/P.W.1, has unequivocally denied the
suggestion made in the cross-examination that, the said
accident has taken place due to his own rash and negligent
riding and there was no fault on the part of the driver of
offending Canter vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN-25-AS-3315.
Further, he has unequivocally denied that, he has sustained
injuries in a self fall accident from his motorcycle.
13. Further, the Ex.P.2 spot mahazar also clearly speaks
that, the said accident has taken place at a distance of 5 feet
from the eastern side of 40 feet wide Hosur-Malur road,
near H. Hosakote Gate, Malur Taluk, Kolar District, due to
dashing of the offending Canter vehicle bearing Reg.
No.TN-25-AS-3315 to on coming motorcycle of the
15 MVC No.3602/2021
petitioner bearing No.TN-70-D-5479. Further, as per the
Motor Vehicle Accident Report, which is marked as Ex.P.5,
the accident is not caused due to any mechanical defects in
the vehicles involved in the accident. When the accident was
not caused due to the any mechanical defects in the
offending Canter vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN-25-AS-3315
and there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner,
then in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it
can be presumed that, the said accident had occurred due
to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending
canter vehicle. There is absolutely no rebuttal evidence
placed on record by the respondent No.3 and even nothing
has been elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to show
that, the said accident has occurred due to rash and
negligent riding of the petitioner himself or there was any
contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner in the
cause of accident. The investigation officer in his final
report, marked as Ex.P.7, has clearly stated that, the said
16 MVC No.3602/2021
accident is caused due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of offending Canter vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN-25-
AS-3315. Admittedly, the said final report/charge-sheet has
not been challenged by the owner or the driver of offending
vehicle. Further, it is pertinent to note that, as per Ex.R.2
order-sheet in C.C.No.453/2021, on the file dof Hon’ble
Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Malur, the accused/driver of
offending Canter vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN-25-AS-3315
has pleaded guilty and accordingly he has been convicted
for the offence punishable under Sec.270 & 338 of I.P.C.,
and Sec.61(1) R/w Sec.192(A) of Motor Vehicles Act. In such
circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the final
report of the investigation officer and other police records,
regarding the date, time and place of accident, involvement
of the offending vehicle, rash and negligent driving of the
driver of offending vehicle and injuries caused to the
petitioner in the said accident
17 MVC No.3602/2021
14. Further, on meticulously going through the Ex.P.6
wound certificate, Ex.P.8 discharge summary, Ex.P.10
scanning reports (total 3) and Ex.P19 and 20 case sheets
(total 2) it clearly reveals that, the petitioner has suffered
injuries in a road traffic accident and he has suffered Type
3C compound fracture right proximal tibia with vascular
injury. On the other hand, there is no rebuttal evidence
produced by the respondent No.3, to show that the above
medical records are false documents. There is nothing on
record to disbelieve the evidence placed on record by the
petitioner. Therefore, in such circumstances and in the light
of above observations, it can safely be held that, the
respondent No.3 has failed to rebut the oral and
documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner
regarding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
offending Canter vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN-25-AS-3315
and injuries sustained by the petitioner in the said accident.
18 MVC No.3602/2021
15. Further, it is well settled principle of law that, in a case
relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are not
required to prove the case as required to be done in a
criminal trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Parameshwari V/s Amir Chand and others, reported in
(2011) SCC 635, has clearly held that, “in a road accident
claim cases the strict principle of proof in a criminal case
are not required.”
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bimla Devi
and others V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation
and others, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 513, has clearly held
that, ” in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the
claimants are merely required to establish their case on
touch stone of preponderance of probability and the
standard of proof on beyond reasonable doubt could not be
applied.”
19 MVC No.3602/2021
17. Therefore, in the light of observations made in the
above cited decisions and for the above stated reasons, this
Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioner has
successfully proved that, he has sustained grievous injuries
in a motor vehicle accident, occurred on 20-02-2021 at
about 3:30 p.m., on Hosur-Malur road, near H. Hosakote
Gate, Malur Taluk, Kolar District, due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of offending Canter vehicle bearing
Reg. No.TN-25-AS-3315. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in
Affirmative.
18. Issue No.2: While answering above issue this Court
has come to conclusion that, the petitioner has successfully
proved that, the accident is caused due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of offending Canter vehicle
bearing Reg. No.TN-25-AS-3315 and he has sustained
grievous injuries in the said accident. The petitioner has
sustained Type 3C compound fracture right proximal tibia
with vascular injury. Therefore, this Court is of the further
20 MVC No.3602/2021
opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation
under various heads. The damages are to be assessed
under two heads i.e. pecuniary damages, such as medical
treatment, attendants, transport, actual loss of earning,
future loss of earning etc., and non pecuniary damages,
such as mental and physical shock, loss of amenities, loss of
expectation of life, loss of prospects of marriage etc. The
petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following
heads:
i) Towards loss of future income: In order to
determine the compensation towards loss of future income,
the age, monthly income and disability of the petitioner are
to be determined. To prove his age, the petitioner has
produced the notarised copy of his Aadhar card, which is
marked as Ex.P.16. As per Ex.P.16, the date of birth of the
petitioner is 01-01-1988. The accident has taken place on
20-02-2021 at about 3:30 p.m. Therefore, the age of the
petitioner as on the date of accident was 33 years. Further,
21 MVC No.3602/2021the P.W.2, who is the doctor, who has examined the
petitioner for the purpose of assessment of disability, has
clearly deposed in his examination-in-chief affidavit that, on
clinical examination he found that, the petitioner has
sustained Type 3C compound fracture right proximal tibia
with vascular injury and for the said injury he has taken
treatement as an in-patient. Further he has deposed that,
on clinical and radiological examination of injuries
sustained by the petitioner he found that, the petitioner has
suffered permanent physical disability of 39.1% to the right
lower limb. The Ex.P.6 wound certificate, Ex.P.8 discharge
summary, Ex.P.10 scanning reports (total 3) and Ex.P19 and
20 case sheets (total 2) also clearly speaks that, the
petitioner has suffered Type 3C compound fracture right
proximal tibia with vascular injury and for the said injury he
has taken treatment as an in-patient. Though, the learned
counsel for respondent No.3 has cross-examined P.W.2 in
length, nothing worth has been elicited from his mouth,
22 MVC No.3602/2021which creates doubt on the veracity of his evidence.
Further, he has clearly denied the suggestions made to him
that, there is no disability suffered by the petitioner and he
has exaggerated the percentage of disability. But, it is
pertinent to note that, the P.W.2 has deposed in his
evidence that, the accident has occurred on 20-02-2021 and
he has assessed the disability to the petitioner on 19-01-
2024, which is after lapse of two years and eleven months
from the date of injuries caused to the petitioner. Further
he has stated that, the petitioner requires corrective
osteotomy surgery for deformity correction. This clearly
goes to show that, the disability has been assessed before
the completion of full treatment to the petitioner. As per
the gazette notification issued by the Ministry of Social
Justice of Government of India, the disability should be
assessed after completion of treatment. If the disability had
been assessed after future surgery, perhaps there would
have been reduction in the percentage of the disability.
23 MVC No.3602/2021
Further, it is pertinent to note that, P.W.2 has clearly
admitted in his cross-examination that, the tibia fracture
sustained by the petitioner is mal-united, the wounds have
been healed and there is no loss of muscle power to the
petitioner. Therefore, considering the age of the petitioner,
injuries sustained, avocation of the petitioner, duration of
treatment and oral and documentary evidence on record,
this Court is of the opinion that, considering the disability of
10% to the whole body of the petitioner would be justified.
Hence, in the instant case the disability of 10% to the whole
body of the petitioner is considered.
a) The petitioner has deposed in his evidence that,
before accident he was working as submersible mechanic
and earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. Further, he
has deposed that, due to the accidental injuries he has
become permanently disabled and thereby lost his earning
capacity. The respondent No.3 has specifically denied the
same. In such circumstances, the burden was on the
24 MVC No.3602/2021
petitioner to prove his avocation and income. But, the
petitioner has failed to establish the same through cogent
and corroborative evidence. He has not produced any
document to show that, before accident he was working as
Submersible Mechanic and earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per
month. In such circumstances, there is no other option
before this Court except to consider the notional income as
per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority. The accident has taken place in the year 2021.
Hence, the notional income of the petitioner is considered
as Rs.15,000/- per month and the annual income of the
petitioner as Rs.1,80,000/-.
b) As per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla
Verma and others V/s Delhi Transport Corporation and
another, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the appropriate
multiplier for a person whose is aged about 33 years is 16.
Therefore, loss of future income is total annual income X
25 MVC No.3602/2021
disability/100 X multiplier = Rs.1,80,000 X 10/100 X 16 =
Rs.2,88,000/-.
ii) Medical expenses: The petitioner has deposed
that, he has incurred expenses of Rs.8,00,000/- towards
medical, conveyance, food & nourishment, attendant
charges and other incidental charge. In order to prove the
same, he has produced one final bill, 4 receipts and 12
medical bills, as per Ex.P.11, 13 and 15. All the bills have
been examined carefully and found that, out of total
medical bills marked as Ex.P.15, the bills at serial No.2 is
advance receipt. Therefore, the said bill is not taken into
consideration. Accordingly, it is held that, the petitioner is
entitled for compensation of Rs.3,46,496/- towards medical
expenses.
iii) Pain and sufferings: In the present case, the
petitioner has sustained grievous injury on his right leg i.e.
Type 3C compound fracture right proximal tibia with
vascular injury. As per Ex.P.19 and 20 case-sheets, the
26 MVC No.3602/2021
petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient for 11 days
from 21-02-2021 to 01-03-2021 and 31-03-2021 to 01-04-
2021, in Medcare Hospital, Bengaluru. Further, as per
P.W.2, the said injury has caused physical disability to the
petitioner. In such circumstances, certainly the petitioner
would have suffered pain and sufferings. Therefore, taking
into considering the injuries sustained and disability to the
petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that, an
compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- is to be awarded to
the petitioner towards pain and sufferings.
iv) Attendant charges: As per Ex.P.19 and 20 case
sheets, the petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient for
11 days in Medcare Hospital, Bengaluru. He might have
spent considerable amount towards attendant charges
during that period. Therefore, compensation of Rs.1000 x
11 = Rs.11,000/- is awarded towards the attendant charges.
v) Food and nourishment: As per Ex.P.19 and 20
case sheets, the petitioner has taken treatment as in-
27 MVC No.3602/2021
patient for 11 days in Medcare Hospital, Bengaluru. He
might have spent considerable amount towards food and
nourishment during that period. Therefore, compensation
of Rs.800 x 11 = Rs.8,800/- is awarded towards food and
nourishment charges.
vi) Conveyance expenses: The petitioner is the
resident of Andevanapalli Village, Krishnagiri District, Tamil
Nadu, the accident has taken place on Hosur-Malur road,
near H. Hosakote Gate, Malur Taluk, Kolar District and the
petitioner has taken treatment at Medcare Hospital,
Bengaluru. Further, the petitioner has produced ambulance
bills (total 5) as per Ex.P.14. Taking into consideration the
distance in between the above places, compensation of
Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards conveyance.
vii) Loss of income during treatment period: The
petitioner has taken treatment for 11 days as in-patient at
Medcare Hospital, Bengaluru, for the grievous injuries
sustained by him. He might have taken rest for about 2
28 MVC No.3602/2021
months and lost his income for the said period. Therefore,
Rs.15,000 x 2 = Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards loss of
income during treatment period.
viii) Loss of amenities: It is evident from the
documents placed on record that, as on the date of accident
the age of the petitioner was 33 years and unfortunately he
has suffered Type 3C compound fracture right proximal
tibia with vascular injury. Further, he has suffered
permanent disability to the extent of 10% to the whole
body. Therefore, awarding compensation of Rs.30,000/-
towards loss of amenities would be just and reasonable.
ix) Future medical expenses: The P.W.2 has
clearly deposed in his evidence that, the petitioner needs to
undergo corrective osteotomy surgery for deformity
correction. But, admittedly the P.W.2 has not issued
estimation of cost for the said surgery. Therefore, this Court
is of the opinion that, awarding compensation of
29 MVC No.3602/2021
Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses would be just
and reasonable.
19. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation under different heads as follows :
1. Loss of future income Rs. 2,88,000-00
2. Medical expenses 3,46,496-00
3. Pain and sufferings 50,000-00
4. Attendant charges 11,000-00
5. Food and nourishment 8,800-00
6. Conveyance expenses 5,000-00
7. Loss of income during 30,000-00
treatment period
8. Loss of amenities 30,000-00
9. Future medical expenses 20,000-00
Total Rs. 7,89,296-00In all, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.7,89,296/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
(excluding interest on future medical expenses of
Rs.20,000/-) from the date of petition till its realization.
30 MVC No.3602/2021
20. Liability: Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the
respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.3 is the
insurer of the offending vehicle. Further, the evidence
placed on record by the petitioner clearly establishes that,
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending
vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN-25-AS-3315 the accident has
occurred and the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries in
the said accident. In such circumstances, the respondent
No.1 being the owner of said vehicle is vicariously liable to
compensate for the damage caused by the said vehicle. The
respondent No.3 being the insurer of the vehicle has to
indemnify the respondent No.1.
21. But, the respondent No.3 insurance company has
taken specific contentions in its written statement that, as
on the date of accident the driver of the offending canter
vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence to
drive the said vehicle and the said canter vehicle was not
having valid permit to ply the same at the place of accident.
31 MVC No.3602/2021
As there is breach of conditions of the policy, the
respondent No.3 insurance company is not liable to
indemnify the respondent No.1. In such circumstances, the
burden was on the respondent No.1 to prove that, at the
time of accident his driver was holding valid and effective
driving licence to drive the offending canter vehicle bearing
Reg. No.TN-25-AS-3315 and his vehicle was having valid
permit to ply the same at the place of accident. But, the
respondent No.1 has failed to discharge his burden in the
case. The respondent No.1 did not choose to appear and
contest the case of the petitioner. In such circumstances,
there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that, at
the of accident the driver of respondent No.1 vehicle was
holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the
offending canter vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN-25-AS-3315
and his vehicle was having valid permit to ply the same at
the place of accident. On the other hand, in order to
establish the said contentions, the respondent No.3 has
32 MVC No.3602/2021
examined the retired ASI of Malur Police Station as R.W.1.
The R.W.1 has clearly deposed in his evidence that, at the
time of accident the offending canter vehicle bearing
No.TN-25-AS-3315 was not having valid permit to ply the
same at the place of accident. He has also produced copy of
order-sheet in CC No.453/2021, true copy of notice under
Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act and its reply as per Ex.R.2
to 4. The said documents clearly speaks that, at the time of
accident the offending canter vehicle bearing No.TN-25-AS-
3315 was not having valid permit to ply the same at the
place of accident. Further, there is absolutely no document
placed on record to show that, at the time of accident the
driver of offending canter vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN-25-
AS-3315 was holding valid and effective driving licence to
drive the said vehicle, which comes under the category of
heavy goods vehicle.
22. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 vehemently
argued that, as on the date of accident the driver of the
33 MVC No.3602/2021
offending canter vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN-25-AS-3315
was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive
the said vehicle and the said vehicle was not having valid
permit to ply the same at the place of accident. As there is
breach of fundamental conditions of the insurance policy by
the insured/respondent No.1, the respondent No.3 is not
liable to indemnify the respondent No.1, for any liability or
compensation awarded by this Court.
23. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
petitioner’s vehemently argued that, it is settled principle of
law that, even if there is a fundamental breach of any
condition recognised under Sec.149(2) of Motor vehicles
Act, the insurance company is liable to pay the third party
and recover from the insured.
24. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the
respondent No.2, there is absolutely no material placed on
record either by the respondent No.1 or the petitioner to
34 MVC No.3602/2021
show that, as on the date of accident the driver of the
offending canter vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN-25-AS-3315
was holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the
said vehicle and the said vehicle was not having valid permit
to ply the same at the place of accident. This clearly goes to
show that, there is breach of fundamental condition of the
insurance policy by the insured/respondent No.1. As such,
the respondent No.2 is not liable to indemnify the
respondent No.1, for the liability or compensation to be
awarded by this Court. Further, it is not the case of the
respondent No.1 that, he was not having knowledge that,
as on the date of accident his driver was not holding valid
and effective driving licence to drive the offending bus. In
such circumstances, there is no other option before this
Court except to hold that, the respondent No.1/owner of
offending vehicle was having knowledge that, as on the
date of accident his driver was not holding valid and
effective driving licence to drive the offending bus and the
35 MVC No.3602/2021
said bus was not having valid permit to ply at the place of
accident and even then he has consciously allowed his
driver to drive the said vehicle at the place of accident. In
such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that, the
respondent No.1 cannot be permitted to take the benefit of
his wrong and the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is
entitled to raise a defence under Sec.149(2) of Motor
Vehicles Act. Further, as the accident in question has taken
place after the date of coming into force of Motor Vehicles
(Amendment) Act, 2019, the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for petitioner that, even if there is a
fundamental breach of any condition recognised under
Sec.149(2) of Motor vehicles Act the insurance company is
liable to pay compensation to the third party and recover
the same from the insured, does not hold good. Further,
the ratio laid down and the observations made in the above
cited judgments relied by the learned counsel for petitioner,
are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of
36 MVC No.3602/2021
the case. Therefore, in such circumstances and for the
above stated reasons, this Court is of the considered
opinion that, there is breach of fundamental conditions of
the Ex.R.4 insurance policy by the insured/respondent No.1
in respect to offending canter vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN-
25-AS-3315 and hence, the respondent No.2 insurance
company is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.1.
Accordingly, holding that the respondent No.1 being the
owner of offending vehicle is liable to pay the above
compensation amount Rs.7,89,296/- to the petitioner, with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till its realization, I answer Issue No.2 in Partly
Affirmative.
25. Issue No.3: In view of the above findings, I proceed to
pass the following order:
ORDER
The petition is partly allowed with
costs.
37 MVC No.3602/2021
The petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.7,89,296/- (Rupees
seven lakh eighty nine thousand two
hundred and ninety six only) with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a.,
(excluding interest on future medical
expenses of Rs.20,000/-) from the date
of petition till realisation.
The respondent No.1 is held liable
to pay the above compensation amount
to the petitioner and he is directed to
pay the said amount to the petitioner
within one month from the date of this
order.
Out of total compensation amount
awarded in favour of petitioners, 30% of
the compensation amount with
proportionate interest shall be
deposited in his name as fixed deposit
in any nationalized bank for the period
of three years with liberty to draw the
accrued interest periodically and the
remaining 70% amount with
proportionate interest shall be released
38 MVC No.3602/2021in his favour, through e-payment on
proper identification and verification.
The petition against respondent
No.3 is dismissed.
Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on computer, typed by him,
corrected and then pronounced in the open court this the 12 th day of June,
2025).
(Mohammed Yunus Athani)
Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
P.W.1: Venkatesh K. S/o Krishnappa P.W.2: Dr. Prabhakaran D. S/o Dhayabaran
Documents marked on behalf of petitioner:
Ex.P.1: True copy of F.I.R. and First Information
Statement
Ex.P.2: True copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.3: True copy of Notice under Section 133 of
Motor Vehicles Act
Ex.P.4: True copy of Reply to Notice under Section
133 of Motor Vehicles Act
Ex.P.5: True copy of M.V.A. Report
Ex.P.6: True copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.7: True copy of Charge-sheet
Ex.P.8: Discharge Summary issued by Medicare
39 MVC No.3602/2021Hospital, Bengaluru
Ex.P.9: Drug List
Ex.P.10: Scanning Reports (total 3)
Ex.P.11: Final Bill
Ex.P.12: Advance Receipts (total 7)
Ex.P.13: Receipts (total 4)
Ex.P.14: Ambulance bills (total 5)
Ex.P.15: Medical Bills
Ex.P.16: Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of the
petitioner
Ex.P.17: Notarized copy of Family Card of the
petitioner
Ex.P.18: Notarized copy of Election ID Card of the
Petitioner
Ex.P.19 & Case-sheets (total 2)
20:
Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
R.W.1: S. Ramakrishnappa S/o Subbaraya R.W.2: Yogashree D/o Sudhakar
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1: Authorization Letter Ex.R.2: Copy of Order Sheet in CC No.453/2021 Ex.R.3: True copy of Notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act Ex.R.4: True copy of Reply to Notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act Ex.R.5: Authorization Letter Ex.R.6: True copy of Insurance Policy (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
[ad_2]
Source link