Bangalore District Court
Ravi vs Sumathi T on 19 June, 2025
KABC020346642021
BEFORE THE COURT OF 10th ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT:
BENGALURU
(SCCH-16)
Present: Sri. Mohammed Yunus Athani
B.A.,L.L.B.,
X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
Dated this 19th day of June, 2025
Petitioner in Ravi S/o Gurrappa,
MVC 5841/2021: Aged about 29 years,
Residing at Nakkalagadda Village,
Gownapalli Post,
Srinivasapura Taluk,
Kolar District.
(Sri N. Manjunath, Advocate)
Petitioner in Srinivasa G. @ G. Srinivasulu S/o
MVC 5842/2021: Gurrappa,
Aged about 31 years,
Residing at Nakkalagadda Village,
Gownapalli Post,
Srinivasapura Taluk,
Kolar District.
(Sri N. Manjunath, Advocate)
2
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
Petitioner in Srinivasa V. S/o Venkataramana,
MVC 5843/2021: Aged about 31 years,
Residing at Nakkalagadda Village,
Gownapalli Post,
Srinivasapura Taluk,
Kolar District.
(Sri N. Manjunath, Advocate)
V/s.
Respondents in 1. Sumathi T. W/o Manjunath,
all the cases : Major by age,
R/at Gownipalli Village & Post,
Srinivasapura Taluk,
Kolar District - 563 161.
(Ex-parte)
2. Liberty General Insurance
Company Limited,
Office No.1, Alyssa,
1st Floor, Rear Portion,
Old No.28, New No.23,
Richmond Road,
Bengaluru - 560 025.
(Policy
No.201250020118802331100000)
(Sri H. K. Ramamurthy, Advocate)
COMMON JUDGMENT
These are petitions filed under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- in
3
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
M.V.C. No.5841/2021, Rs.10,00,000/- in M.V.C. No.5842/2021
and Rs.25,00,000/- in M.V.C. No.5843/2021 from the
respondents, on account of grievous injuries sustained by
the petitioners in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 16-09-2021 at about 2:00 p.m., the petitioners in
M.V.C. No.5841/2021, M.V.C. No.5842/2021 and M.V.C.
No.5843/2021 were proceeding on Hero Honda Splendor
Plus motorcycle bearing No.KA-07-U-8480, as rider and
pillion riders, from Gownipalli village, towards Kodipalli
village, slowly, cautiously and on the correct side of the
road. When they reached near Rajesh Medical Shop, on
Gownapalli-Kodipalli road, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar
District, one Royal Enfield Bullet motorcycle bearing Reg.
No.KA-07-EC-2448, came from opposite direction i.e. from
Kodipalli side, ridden by its rider with high speed, in rash
and negligent manner, lost control over the vehicle, went to
its wrong side of the road and dashed violently against the
4
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
motorcycle of the petitioners. Due to said impact, all the
petitioners fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
Immediately after the accident the petitioner in MVC
No.5841/2021 was shifted to Government Hospital,
Gownapalli, wherein he took first aid treatment and then he
was shifted to S.N.R. Hospital, Kolar and then he was shifted
to R. L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar, wherein he took treatment
as an in-patient. Earlier to the accident, he was working as
agriculturist and earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month.
But, due to the accidental injuries, he has become
permanently disabled and thereby lost his earning capacity.
Likewise, immediately after the accident the petitioner in
MVC No.5842/2021 was shifted to Government Hospital,
Gownapalli, wherein he took first aid treatment and then he
was shifted to S.N.R. Hospital, Kolar and then he was shifted
to R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar and thereafter, he was shifted
to Viswa Orthopaedic Hospital, Madanapalle, Andhra
Pradesh, wherein he took treatment as an in-patient. Earlier
5
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
to the accident, he was working as agriculturist and earning
a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. But, due to the accidental
injuries, he has become permanently disabled and thereby
lost his earning capacity. Likewise, immediately after the
accident the petitioner in MVC No.5843/2021 was shifted to
Government Hospital, Gownapalli, wherein he took first aid
treatment and then he was shifted to S.N.R. Hospital, Kolar
and then he was shifted to R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar and
thereafter, he was shifted to ETCM Hospital, Kolar, wherein
he took treatment as an in-patient. Earlier to the accident,
he was working as heavy transport vehicle driver and
earning a 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 Gownapalli Police
have registered the case against the rider of the said
motorcycle for the offences punishable under Section 279
and 337 of I.P.C. The respondent No.1 is the owner and
respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.
6
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
Hence, they are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, it is prayed to
allow the petition and award compensation of
Rs.40,00,000/- in M.V.C. No.5841/2021, Rs.10,00,000/- in
M.V.C. No.5842/2021 and Rs.25,00,000/- in M.V.C.
No.5843/2021 with interest.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the
respondent No.2 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.2 in its written statement has
denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has
contended that, on the basis of the particulars furnished by
the petitioner it has been noticed from the records of this
respondent that no such policy has been issued by their
company in favour of the respondent No.1 in respect of
7
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-07-EC-2448, which is alleged
to have caused to the accident. Further it is contended that,
the respondent No.1 vehicle bearing No.KA-07-EC-2448 and
its rider have been implicated in the alleged accident with
respect to this case at the instance of the petitioner in
connivance with the jurisdictional police and the
respondent No.1 has also co-operated with the petitioner in
doing the same, the complainant has filed a complaint
before the jurisdictional police after lapse of stipulated time
from the alleged accident for illegal gain, this aspects is
evident on the perusal of MLC extract, MVA report, mahazar
drawn by the police, the jurisdictional police have seized the
respondent No.1 vehicle and filed a false charge-sheet
against the rider of the said vehicle, itself shows that the
respondent No.1 vehicle and its rider has been implicated in
the alleged accident for illegal gain. Further it is contended
that, the alleged accident has taken place due to careless
and negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle
8
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
bearing No.KA-07-U-8480, who was riding the same in rash
and negligent manner, without driving licence, without
wearing helmet, so endangering to human life and also
allowing a persons to travel in his vehicle more than seating
capacity and himself caused the alleged accident as self
negligence, this aspect is evident on perusal of MVA report
and other police documents. Further, the petitions are liable
to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e.
insured and insurer of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-07-U-
8480. It has denied the age, income and avocation of the
petitioners, injuries, medical expenses and treatment taken
by them. It has denied the mode, occurrence of the
accident and also involvement of the vehicle bearing No.KA-
07-U-8480 as mentioned in the claim petitions. The petitions
are bad for non compliance of provision under Sections
134(C) and 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act. Further, it has
sought for permission to contest the case even on behalf of
respondent No.1, as per Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles
9
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
Act. Further it is contended that, the compensation claimed
is highly excessive and exorbitant. For the above denials
and contentions, it is prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
5. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the
following issues are framed:
Issues in MVC No.5841/2021
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he has
sustained grievous injuries in the Road
Traffic Accident, alleged to have occurred
on 16-09-2021 at about 2.00 p.m., due to
the rash and negligent riding of the rider
of the Royal Enfield Bullet Motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-07-EC-2448 ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the quantum
and from whom?
3. What order or Award?
Issues in MVC No.5482/2021
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he has
sustained grievous injuries in the Road
10
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
Traffic Accident, alleged to have occurred
on 16-09-2021 at about 2.00 p.m., due to
the rash and negligent riding of the rider of
the Royal Enfield Bullet Motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-07-EC-2448 ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the quantum
and from whom?
3. What order or Award?
Issues in MVC No.5483/2021
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he has
sustained grievous injuries in the Road
Traffic Accident, alleged to have occurred
on 16-09-2021 at about 2.00 p.m., due to
the rash and negligent riding of the rider of
the Royal Enfield Bullet Motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-07-EC-2448 ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the quantum
and from whom?
3. What order or Award?
11
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
6. In order to prove their case, the petitioners have got
examined themselves as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got marked
total 29 documents as Ex.P.1 to 29. Further, they have got
examined four more witnesses namely Dr. Nagakumar and
Elizabeth Caroliine J., as P.W.4 to P.W.7. On the other hand,
the respondent No.2 has got examined its
representative/Legal Manager as R.W.1 and got marked
one document as Ex.R.1.
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:
In M.V.C. No.5481/2021 to 5483/2021
Issue No.1: Partly Affirmative
Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative
Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the
following:
REASONS
12
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
9. Issue No.1 in all the cases: It is specific case of the
petitioners that, on 16-09-2021 at about 2:00 p.m., they
were proceeding on Hero Honda Splendor Plus motorcycle
bearing No.KA-07-U-8480, as rider and pillion riders, from
Gownipalli village towards Kodipalli village, slowly,
cautiously and on correct side of the road. When they
reached near Rajesh Medical Shop, on Gownapalli-Kodipalli
road, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District, the offending Royal
Enfield Bullet motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-07-EC-2448
came from opposite direction i.e. from Kodipalli side, ridden
by its rider with high speed, in rash and negligent manner,
lost control over the vehicle, went to its wrong side of the
road and dashed violently against the motorcycle of the
petitioners. Due to the impact, all the petitioners fell down
and sustained grievous injuries. Further it is contended
that, earlier to the accident, the petitioners in MVC
No.5481/2021 and MVC No.5482/2021 were working as
agriculturists and earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month
13
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
each and the petitioner in MVC No.5483/2021 was working
as heavy transport vehicle driver and earning a sum of
Rs.25,000/- per month. But, due to the accidental injuries,
they have become permanently disabled and thereby lost
their earning capacity.
10. In order to prove their case, the petitioners have got
examined themselves as P.W.1 to P.W.3 by filing
examination-in-chief affidavit, wherein they have reiterated
the entire averments made in the petition. In support of
their oral evidence, the petitioners have got marked 29
documents as Ex.P.1 to 29. Out of the said documents,
Ex.P.1 is true copy of F.I.R., Ex.P.2 is true copy of first
information statement, Ex.P.3 is true copy of further
requisition, Ex.P.4 is true copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P.5 is
true copy of seizure mahazer, Ex.P.6 is true copy of Motor
Vehicle Accident report, Ex.P.7 is true copy of wound
certificate, Ex.P.8 is true copy of charge-sheet, Ex.P.9 are
discharge summaries (total 2), Ex.P.10 is notarised copy of
14
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
Aadhar card, Ex.P.11 are medical bills (total 62), Ex.P.12 are
medical prescriptions (total 40), Ex.P.13 is true copy of
wound certificate, Ex.P.14 is discharge summary, Ex.P.15 is
notarized copy of Aadhar card, Ex.P.16 are medical bills
(total 8), Ex.P.17 is true copy of wound certificate, Ex.P.18 is
discharge summary, Ex.P.19 is notarized copy of Aadhar
card, Ex.P.20 are medical bills (total 17), Ex.P.21 is clinical
notes, Ex.P.22 is case sheet, Ex.P.23 is x-ray, Ex.P.24 is
clinical notes, Ex.P.25 is x-ray, Ex.P.26 is clinical notes,
Ex.P.27 is x-ray, Ex.P.28 is authorization letter and Ex.P.29 is
inpatient case-sheet.
11. On meticulously going through the police documents
marked as Ex.P.1 to 8, 13 and 17, prima-facia it reveals that,
the accident in question has taken place due to rash and
negligent riding of the rider of offending Royal Enfield
Bullet motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-07-EC-2448 and
dashing the same to oncoming motorcycle of the
petitioners. Further it reveals that, due to said impact, all
15
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
the petitioners have fell down on the road and sustained
grievous injuries. The investigation officer in his final
report/charge-sheet, which is marked as Ex.P.8, has clearly
stated that, the said accident has taken place due to rash
and negligent riding of the rider of offending Royal Enfield
Bullet motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-07-EC-2448 and the
petitioners have sustained grievous injuries in the said
accident.
12. At the outset it is pertinent to note that, there is no
dispute with regard to date, time and place of accident,
involvement of Royal Enfield Bullet motorcycle bearing Reg.
No.KA-07-EC-2448 in the alleged accident, issuance of
insurance policy in respect of the said vehicle and its validity
as on the date of accident. 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 file his
written statement and contest the case of the petitioners.
16
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
Whereas, the respondent No.2 insurance company has
specifically denied the above averred facts and
circumstances of the accident and has taken specific
defence that, the said accident has occurred due to self rash
and negligent riding of the rider of motorcycle bearing
No.KA-07-EC-2448 and the offending Royal Enfield Bullet
motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-07-EC-2448 has been falsely
implicated in the said accident by the petitioners, in
collusion with the police. But, the respondent No.2 has
failed to establish the said contentions. Except the self
serving statement of the representative/Legal Manager of
the respondent No.2 insurance company, there is
absolutely no other oral or documentary evidence
produced by the respondent No.2 to show that, the
accident has taken place due to rash and negligent riding of
the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-007-U-8480 and
the offending Royal Enfield Bullet motorcycle bearing Reg.
No.KA-07-EC-2448 has been falsely implicated by the
17
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
petitioners. Even nothing with respect to same has been
brought out in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to P.W.3.
Except the self serving statements of the R.W.1, there is
absolutely no other rebuttal evidence placed on record by
the respondent No.2 to disprove the oral and documentary
evidence placed on record by the petitioners. Though, the
learned counsel for respondent No.2 has cross-examined
P.W.1 to P.W.3 in all the cases in length, nothing worth has
been elicited from their mouth which establishes that, the
accident has taken place due to rash and negligent riding of
the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-07-U-8480
himself or there was any contributory negligence on his
part in the cause of accident. The P.W.1 to P.W.3 have
unequivocally denied the suggestion made in their cross-
examination that, the alleged accident has taken place due
to sole rash and negligent riding of the petitioner in M.V.C.
No.5841/2021, who was the rider of motorcycle bearing
No.KA-07-U-8480 at the time of accident and there is no
18
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
fault on the part of the rider of the offending motorcycle
and they have falsely implicated the said vehicle in the said
accident.
13. Further, the Ex.P.4 spot mahazer clearly speaks that,
the accident has taken place on 15 feet wide Gownapalli-
Kodipalli road, near Rajesh Medical Shop, Srinivasapura
Taluk, Kolar District, in between offending motorcycle
bearing Reg. No.KA-07-EC-2448 and on coming motorcycle
bearing No.KA-07-U-8480 of the petitioners. Further, as per
the Motor Vehicle Accident Report, which is marked as
Ex.P.6, 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 any mechanical defects in
the offending vehicle and when there was no negligence on
the part of the rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA-07-U-
8480, 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 riding of the rider of
19
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
offending vehicle. There is absolutely no rebuttal evidence
placed on record by the respondents and even nothing has
been elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to P.W.3, to
show that, the said accident has occurred due to rash and
negligent riding of the rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA-
07-U-8480 himself or there was any contributory negligence
on his part in the cause of accident. There is absolutely no
reason to disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence
placed on record by the petitioners. Further, the
investigation officer in his Ex.P.8 final report/charge-sheet
has clearly stated that, the said accident has taken place
due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of offending
Royal Enfield Bullet motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-07-EC-
2448. Admittedly, the Ex.P.8 final report/charge-sheet has
not been challenged by the owner or the rider of offending
vehicle. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to
believe the final report/charge-sheet filed by the
investigation officer and other police records, regarding the
20
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
date, time and place of accident, involvement of offending
motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-07-EC-2448 in the accident,
rash and negligent riding of the rider of offending vehicle
and the injuries caused to the petitioners in the said
accident.
14. But, it is pertinent to note that, admittedly, at the time
of accident the petitioners were triple riders on the
motorcycle bearing No.KA-07-U-8480. This clearly goes to
show that, the petitioners consciously and being fully aware
that, triple riding is not allowed and it amounts to violation
of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and it may lead the
rider to lose control over the said vehicle due to congestion,
have taken risk of traveling altogether on the said
motorcycle. No doubt, mere act of triple riding does not
amount to contributory negligence. But, it is pertinent to
note that, in the present case the pillion riders were not the
children, but, they are young and healthy persons, both
aged about 31 years. In such circumstances, there are every
21
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
chances that, due to triple riding on the motorcycle by the
petitioners, which is meant for two persons, there would
have been congestion to the rider of motorcycle and he
might have lost control and contributed in the cause of
accident. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, the
very act of triple riding by the petitioners has also
contributed in the cause of accident to some extent. But, as
there is no cogent and corroborative evidence to show that,
the very act of triple riding has contributed either to the
accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victims,
this Court is of the opinion that, holding the petitioners are
liable for contributory negligence to the extent of 10%
would meet the ends of justice.
15. Further, on meticulously going through the Ex.P.7, 13
and 17 wound certificates, Ex.P.9, 14 and 18 discharge
summaries, Ex.P.21, 24 and 26 clinical notes, Ex.P.22 case
sheet, Ex.P.23, 25 and 27 x-rays (total 3) and Ex.P.29
inpatient case-sheet, it clearly reveals that, all the
22
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
petitioners have sustained grievous injuries in the said
accident. The petitioner in M.V.C. No.5841/2021 has
sustained (a) closed displaced fracture of right clavicle at
middle one third shaft, (b) closed displaced sub-trochantric
fracture of left femur, (c) closed displaced fracture of left
fibula at distal third, (d) open type II displaced fracture shaft
of 1st metatarsal, fracture neck of 3rd and 4th metatarsal of
left foot, (e) fracture of left middle cuniform (left foot), (f)
open type II displaced avulsion fracture base of 2nd proximal
phalynx of left foot, (g) comminuted fracture of 3 rd proximal
phalynx of left foot, (h) avulsion fracture of 4 th toe distal
phalynx at base left foot and (i) 2nd, 3rd and 4th toe extensor
tendon injury. Likewise, the petitioner in M.V.C.
No.5842/2021 has sustained (a) fracture of distal radius with
dislocation of wrist joint and (b) bonnets fracture of left
thumb and the petitioner in M.V.C. No.5843/2021 has
sustained (a) closed comminuted fracture shaft left femur,
(b) type I open fracture both bones left leg and (c) type II
23
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
open fracture neck of 5th metacarpal of left hand. Further,
the P.W.4 to P.W.6, who are the doctors who have examined
the petitioners in M.V.C. No.5841/2021 to M.V.C.
No.5843/2021 have clearly deposed in their evidence that,
on clinical examination they found that, the petitioners
have sustained fractures and for the said injuries they have
undergone surgery. On the other hand, there is no rebuttal
evidence to show that, the oral evidence of P.W.4 to P.W.6
and above medical records are false. In such circumstances
and in the light of above observations, it can safely be held
that, the respondent has failed to rebut the oral and
documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners
regarding the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the
offending Royal Enfield Bullet motorcycle bearing Reg.
No.KA-07-EC-2448 and the injuries sustained by the
petitioners in the said accident.
16. Further, it is well settled principle of law that, in a case
relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are not
24
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
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."
17. 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."
18. 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 petitioners in
25
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
M.V.C. No.5841/2021 to M.V.C. No.5843/2021 have
successfully proved that, they have sustained grievous
injuries in a motor vehicle accident, occurred on 16-09-2021
at about 2.00 p.m., on Gownipalli-Kodipalli road, near
Rajesh Medical Shop, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District,
due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the
offending Royal Enfield Bullet motorcycle bearing Reg.
No.KA-07-EC-2448. But, the petitioners have failed to prove
that, the said accident has taken place due to sole rash and
negligent driving of the rider of offending motorcycle.
There is contributory negligence even on the part of the
petitioners in the cause of accident, to the extent of 10%.
Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in all the cases in Partly
Affirmative.
19. Issue No.2 in M.V.C. No.5841/2021: While answering
above issue this Court has come to conclusion that, the
petitioner has successfully proved that, the accident has
taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of
26
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
the offending Royal Enfield Bullet motorcycle bearing Reg.
No.KA-07-EC-2448 and he has sustained (a) closed displaced
fracture of right clavicle at middle one third shaft, (b) closed
displaced sub-trochantric fracture of left femur, (c) closed
displaced fracture of left fibula at distal third, (d) open type
II displaced fracture shaft of 1st metatarsal, fracture neck of
3rd and 4th metatarsal of left foot, (e) fracture of left middle
cuniform (left foot), (f) open type II displaced avulsion
fracture base of 2nd proximal phalynx of left foot, (g)
comminuted fracture of 3rd proximal phalynx of left foot, (h)
avulsion fracture of 4th toe distal phalynx at base left foot
and (i) 2nd, 3rd and 4th toe extensor tendon injury in the said
accident. Therefore, this Court is of the further 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
27
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
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.10. As per Ex.P.10, the date of birth of the
petitioner is 01-02-1992. The accident has taken place on
16-09-2021 at about 2.00 p.m. Therefore, the age of the
petitioner as on the date of accident is 30 years. Further,
the P.W.4, who is the doctor who has examined the
petitioner for the purpose of assessment of his disability,
has clearly deposed in his examination-in-chief affidavit
that, on clinical examination he found that, the petitioner
has suffered (a) closed displaced fracture of right clavicle at
middle one third shaft, (b) closed displaced sub-trochantric
28
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
fracture of left femur, (c) closed displaced fracture of left
fibula at distal third, (d) open type II displaced fracture shaft
of 1st metatarsal, fracture neck of 3rd and 4th metatarsal of
left foot, (e) fracture of left middle cuniform (left foot), (f)
open type II displaced avulsion fracture base of 2nd proximal
phalynx of left foot, (g) comminuted fracture of 3 rd proximal
phalynx of left foot, (h) avulsion fracture of 4 th toe distal
phalynx at base left foot and (i) 2nd, 3rd and 4th toe extensor
tendon injury. Further he has deposed that, on clinical and
radiological examination of injuries suffered by the
petitioner he found that, the petitioner has suffered 45.6%
physical disability to his left lower limb and 19% physical
disability to whole body. Further, the Ex.P.7 wound
certificate, Ex.P.9 discharge summaries (total 2), Ex.P.21
clinical notes, Ex.P.22 case sheet and Ex.P.23 x-ray clearly
speaks that, the petitioner has suffered above stated
grievous injuries in a road traffic accident. Though, the
learned counsel for respondent No.2 has cross-examined
29
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
P.W.4 in length, nothing worth has been elicited from his
mouth which creates doubt on the veracity of his evidence.
Further, he has clearly denied the suggestions made in his
cross-examination that, the petitioner has not suffered any
disability as stated him and he has exaggerated the
percentage of disability to the petitioner. But, it is pertinent
to note that, the P.W.4 has deposed in his evidence that, the
accident has occurred on 16-09-2021 and he has assessed
the disability to the petitioner on 03-12-2024, which is after
lapse of three years and two months from the date of
injuries caused to the petitioner. Further he has stated that,
the petitioner requires one more surgery for removal of
implants. This clearly goes to show that, the disability has
been assessed before completion of full treatment. 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
30
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
have been reduction in the percentage of the disability.
Further, it is pertinent to note that, P.W.4 has clearly
deposed in his evidence that, except clavicle bone fracture
rest of the fracture sustained by the petitioner are united.
Therefore, considering the age of the petitioner, injuries
sustained, duration of treatment and oral and documentary
evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that,
considering the disability of 15% to the whole body of the
petitioner would be justified. Hence, in the instant case the
disability of 15% to the whole body of the petitioner is
considered.
a) The petitioner has deposed in his evidence that,
before accident he was working as agriculturist and earning
a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. Further, he has deposed
that, due to grievous injuries suffered in the said accident
he is unable to do his work. The respondent No.2 has
specifically denied the same. In such circumstances, the
burden was on the petitioner to prove his avocation and
31
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
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 the accident
he was working as agriculturist and earning a sum of
Rs.25,000/- per month. Therefore, 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 30 years is 17.
Therefore, loss of future income is Total annual income X
disability/100 X multiplier = Rs.1,80,000 X 15/100 X 17 =
Rs.4,59,000/-.
32
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
ii) Medical expenses: The petitioner has deposed
that, he has incurred expenses of Rs.3,00,000/- towards
medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental
charge etc. In order to prove the same, he has produced 62
medical bills, as per Ex.P.11. All the bills have been
examined carefully and found that the petitioner has spent
total amount of Rs.52,431/- towards medical expenses.
Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.52,431/- under
the head of medical expenses.
iii) Pain and sufferings: In the present case, the
petitioner has sustained grievous injury i.e. (a) closed
displaced fracture of right clavicle at middle one third shaft,
(b) closed displaced sub-trochantric fracture of left femur,
(c) closed displaced fracture of left fibula at distal third, (d)
open type II displaced fracture shaft of 1st metatarsal,
fracture neck of 3rd and 4th metatarsal of left foot, (e)
fracture of left middle cuniform (left foot), (f) open type II
displaced avulsion fracture base of 2nd proximal phalynx of
33
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
left foot, (g) comminuted fracture of 3rd proximal phalynx of
left foot, (h) avulsion fracture of 4th toe distal phalynx at
base left foot and (i) 2nd, 3rd and 4th toe extensor tendon
injury. As per Ex.P.9 discharge summaries (total 2), the
petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient for 33 days
from 16-09-2021 to 09-10-2021 and 29-11-2021 to 08-12-
2021, in R.L. Jalappa Hospital and Research Centre, Kolar.
Further as per P.W.4, the said injuries have 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.80,000/- is to be
awarded to the petitioner towards pain and sufferings.
iv) Attendant charges: As per Ex.P.9 discharge
summaries (total 2), the petitioner has taken treatment as
in-patient for 33 days in R.L. Jalappa Hospital and Research
Centre, Kolar. He might have spent considerable amount
34
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
towards attendant charges during that period. Therefore,
compensation of Rs.1000 x 33 = Rs.33,000/- is awarded
towards the attendant charges.
v) Food and nourishment: As per Ex.P.9
discharge summaries (total 2), the petitioner has taken
treatment as in-patient for 33 days in R.L. Jalappa Hospital
and Research Centre, Kolar. He might have spent
considerable amount towards food and nourishment
during that period. Therefore, compensation of Rs.800 x 33
= Rs.26,400/- is awarded towards food and nourishment
charges.
vi) Conveyance expenses: The petitioner is the
resident of Nakkalagadda Village, Gownapalli Post,
Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District, the accident has taken
place on Gownipalli-Kodipalli road, near Rajesh Medical
Shop, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District and he has taken
treatment at R.L. Jalappa Hospital and Research Centre,
Kolar. Taking into consideration the distance in between all
35
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
the above three places, compensation of Rs.5,000/- is
awarded towards conveyance.
vii) Loss of income during treatment period: The
petitioner has taken treatment for 33 days as in-patient at
R.L. Jalappa Hospital and Research Centre, Kolar, for the
grievous injuries sustained in the said accident He might
have taken rest for about 6 months and lost his income for
the said period. Therefore, Rs.15,000 x 6 = Rs.90,000/- 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 30 years and unfortunately he
has suffered grievous injuries. Further, he has suffered
permanent disability to the extent of 15% 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.4 has
clearly deposed in his evidence that, the petitioner needs to
36
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
undergo one more surgery for removal of implants. But,
admittedly the P.W.4 has not issued the estimation of cost
for the said surgery. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion
that, awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards future
medical expenses would be just and reasonable.
20. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation under different heads as follows :
1. Loss of future income Rs. 4,59,000-00
2. Medical expenses 52,431-00
3. Pain and sufferings 80,000-00
4. Attendant charges 33,000-00
5. Food and nourishment 26,400-00
6. Conveyance expenses 5,000-00
7. Loss of income during 90,000-00
treatment period
8. Loss of amenities 30,000-00
9. Future medical expenses 20,000-00
Total Rs. 7,95,831-00
90% of Total Rs. 7,16,248-00
In all, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.7,16,248/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
37
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
(excluding interest on future medical expenses of
Rs.20,000/-) from the date of petition till its realization.
21. Issue No.2 in M.V.C. No.5842/2021: While answering
above issue this Court has come to conclusion that, the
petitioner has successfully proved that, the accident has
taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of
the offending Royal Enfield Bullet motorcycle bearing Reg.
No.KA-07-EC-2448 and he has sustained (a) fracture of distal
radius with dislocation of wrist joint and (b) bonnets
fracture of left thumb in the said accident. Therefore, this
Court is of the further 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
38
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
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.15. As per Ex.P.15, the date of birth of the
petitioner is 02-01-1990. The accident has taken place on
16-09-2021 at about 2.00 p.m. Therefore, the age of the
petitioner as on the date of accident is 32 years. Further,
the P.W.5, who is the doctor who has examined the
petitioner for the purpose of assessment of his disability,
has clearly deposed in his examination-in-chief affidavit
that, on clinical examination he found that, the petitioner
has suffered (a) fracture of distal radius with dislocation of
wrist joint and (b) bonnets fracture of left thumb. Further he
has deposed that, on clinical and radiological examination
39
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
of injuries suffered by the petitioner he found that, the
petitioner has suffered 23.2% physical disability to his left
lower limb and 10% physical disability to whole body.
Further, the Ex.P.13 wound certificate, Ex.P.14 discharge
summary, Ex.P.24 clinical notes and Ex.P.25 x-ray clearly
speaks that, the petitioner has suffered above stated
grievous injuries in a road traffic accident. Though, the
learned counsel for respondent No.2 has cross-examined
P.W.5 in length, nothing worth has been elicited from his
mouth which creates doubt on the veracity of his evidence.
Further, he has clearly denied the suggestions made in his
cross-examination that, the petitioner has not suffered any
disability as stated him and he has exaggerated the
percentage of disability to the petitioner. But, it is pertinent
to note that, the P.W.5 has deposed in his evidence that, the
accident has occurred on 16-09-2021 and he has assessed
the disability to the petitioner on 03-12-2024, which is after
lapse of three years and two months from the date of
40
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
injuries caused to the petitioner. Further, it is pertinent to
note that, P.W.5 has clearly deposed in his evidence that,
the fracture is mal-united and there is no nerve damage to
the petitioner, the dominant hand of the petitioner is a right
hand, he can do his normal activities with right hand.
Therefore, considering the age of the petitioner, injuries
sustained, duration of treatment and oral and documentary
evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that,
considering the disability of 7% to the whole body of the
petitioner would be justified. Hence, in the instant case the
disability of 7% to the whole body of the petitioner is
considered.
a) The petitioner has deposed in his evidence that,
before accident he was working as agriculturist and earning
a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. Further, he has deposed
that, due to grievous injuries suffered in the said accident
he is unable to do his work. The respondent No.2 has
specifically denied the same. In such circumstances, the
41
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
burden was on the 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 the accident
he was working as agriculturist and earning a sum of
Rs.25,000/- per month. Therefore, 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 32 years is 16.
Therefore, loss of future income is Total annual income X
42
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
disability/100 X multiplier = Rs.1,80,000 X 7/100 X 16 =
Rs.2,01,600/-.
ii) Medical expenses: The petitioner has deposed
that, he has incurred expenses of Rs.1,00,000/- towards
medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental
charge etc. In order to prove the same, he has produced 8
medical bills, as per Ex.P.16. All the bills have been
examined carefully and found that the petitioner has spent
total amount of Rs.48,087/- towards medical expenses.
Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.48,087/- under
the head of medical expenses.
iii) Pain and sufferings: In the present case, the
petitioner has sustained grievous injury i.e. (a) fracture of
distal radius with dislocation of wrist joint and (b) bonnets
fracture of left thumb. As per Ex.P.14 discharge summary,
the petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient for 2 days
from 17-09-2021 to 18-09-2021, in Viswa Orthopaedic
Hospital, Madanapalle. Further as per P.W.5, the said
43
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
injuries have 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.40,000/- is to be awarded to
the petitioner towards pain and sufferings.
iv) Attendant charges: As per Ex.P.14 discharge
summary, the petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient
for 2 days in Viswa Orthopaedic Hospital, Madanapalle. He
might have spent considerable amount towards attendant
charges during that period. Therefore, compensation of
Rs.1000 x 2 = Rs.2,000/- is awarded towards the attendant
charges.
v) Food and nourishment: As per Ex.P.14
discharge summary, the petitioner has taken treatment as
in-patient for 2 days in Viswa Orthopaedic Hospital,
Madanapalle. He might have spent considerable amount
44
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
towards food and nourishment during that period.
Therefore, compensation of Rs.800 x 2 = Rs.1,600/- is
awarded towards food and nourishment charges.
vi) Conveyance expenses: The petitioner is the
resident of Nakkalagadda Village, Gownapalli Post,
Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District, the accident has taken
place on Gownipalli-Kodipalli road, near Rajesh Medical
Shop, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District and he has taken
treatment at Viswa Orthopaedic Hospital, Madanapalle.
Taking into consideration the distance in between all the
above three places, compensation of Rs.5,000/- is awarded
towards conveyance.
vii) Loss of income during treatment period: The
petitioner has taken treatment for 2 days as in-patient at
Viswa Orthopaedic Hospital, Madanapalle, for the grievous
injuries sustained in the said accident He might have taken
rest for about 2 months and lost his income for the said
45
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
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 32 years and unfortunately he
has suffered grievous injuries. Further, he has suffered
permanent disability to the extent of 7% to the whole body.
Therefore, awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards
loss of amenities would be just and reasonable.
ix) Future medical expenses: There is no evidence
on record to show that, the petitioner requires any further
treatment for the injuries sustained in the said accident.
Even, the P.W.5 has not stated anything with respect to
same. In such circumstances, the question of awarding
future medical expenses does not arise at all. Therefore, no
compensation is awarded in this particular head.
22. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation under different heads as follows :
46
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
1. Loss of future income Rs. 2,01,600-00
2. Medical expenses 48,087-00
3. Pain and sufferings 40,000-00
4. Attendant charges 2,000-00
5. Food and nourishment 1,600-00
6. Conveyance expenses 5,000-00
7. Loss of income during 30,000-00
treatment period
8. Loss of amenities 20,000-00
9. Future medical expenses Nil
Total Rs. 3,48,287-00
90% of Total Rs. 3,13,458-00
In all, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.3,13,458/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of petition till its realization.
23. Issue No.2 in M.V.C. No.5843/2021: While answering
above issue this Court has come to conclusion that, the
petitioner has successfully proved that, the accident has
taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of
the offending Royal Enfield Bullet motorcycle bearing Reg.
No.KA-07-EC-2448 and he has sustained (a) closed
47
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
comminuted fracture shaft left femur, (b) type I open
fracture both bones left leg and (c) type II open fracture
neck of 5th metacarpal of left hand in the said accident.
Therefore, this Court is of the further 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.19. As per Ex.P.19, the date of birth of the
48
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
petitioner is 06-07-1990. The accident has taken place on
16-09-2021 at about 2.00 p.m. Therefore, the age of the
petitioner as on the date of accident is 31 years. Further,
the P.W.6, who is the doctor who has examined the
petitioner for the purpose of assessment of his disability,
has clearly deposed in his examination-in-chief affidavit
that, on clinical examination he found that, the petitioner
has suffered (a) closed comminuted fracture shaft left
femur, (b) type I open fracture both bones left leg and (c)
type II open fracture neck of 5th metacarpal of left hand.
Further he has deposed that, on clinical and radiological
examination of injuries suffered by the petitioner he found
that, the petitioner has suffered 59.82% physical disability
to his left lower limb and 20% physical disability to whole
body. Further, the Ex.P.17 wound certificate, Ex.P.18
discharge summary, Ex.P.26 clinical notes and Ex.P.27 x-ray
clearly speaks that, the petitioner has suffered above stated
grievous injuries in a road traffic accident. Though, the
49
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
learned counsel for respondent No.2 has cross-examined
P.W.6 in length, nothing worth has been elicited from his
mouth which creates doubt on the veracity of his evidence.
Further, he has clearly denied the suggestions made in his
cross-examination that, the petitioner has not suffered any
disability as stated him and he has exaggerated the
percentage of disability to the petitioner. But, it is pertinent
to note that, the P.W.6 has deposed in his evidence that, the
accident has occurred on 16-09-2021 and he has assessed
the disability to the petitioner on 20-12-2024, which is after
lapse of three years and three months from the date of
injuries caused to the petitioner. Further he has stated that,
the petitioner requires one more surgery for removal of
implants. This clearly goes to show that, the disability has
been assessed before completion of full treatment. 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
50
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
been assessed after future surgery, perhaps there would
have been reduction in the percentage of the disability.
Further, it is pertinent to note that, P.W.6 has clearly
deposed in his evidence that, the fracture sustained by the
petitioner is united and there is no nerve damage to the
petitioner. Therefore, considering the age of the petitioner,
injuries sustained, duration of treatment and oral and
documentary evidence on record, this Court is of the
opinion that, considering the disability of 15% to the whole
body of the petitioner would be justified. Hence, in the
instant case the disability of 15% to the whole body of the
petitioner is considered.
a) The petitioner has deposed in his evidence that,
before accident he was working as heavy transport vehicle
driver and earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. Further,
he has deposed that, due to grievous injuries suffered in
the said accident he is unable to do his work. The
respondent No.2 has specifically denied the same. In such
51
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
circumstances, the burden was on the 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 the accident he was working as heavy transport
vehicle driver and earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month.
Therefore, 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 31 years is 16.
Therefore, loss of future income is Total annual income X
52
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
disability/100 X multiplier = Rs.1,80,000 X 15/100 X 16 =
Rs.4,32,000/-.
ii) Medical expenses: The petitioner has deposed
that, he has incurred expenses of Rs.2,00,000/- towards
medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental
charge etc. In order to prove the same, he has produced 17
medical bills, as per Ex.P.20. All the bills have been
examined carefully and found that the petitioner has spent
total amount of Rs.1,35,431/- towards medical expenses.
Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,35,431/- under
the head of medical expenses.
iii) Pain and sufferings: In the present case, the
petitioner has sustained grievous injury i.e. (a) closed
comminuted fracture shaft left femur, (b) type I open
fracture both bones left leg and (c) type II open fracture
neck of 5th metacarpal of left hand. As per Ex.P.18 discharge
summary, the petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient
for 8 days from 16-09-2021 to 23-09-2021, in Ellen Thoburn
53
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
Cowen Memorial Hospital, Kolar. Further as per P.W.6, the
said injuries have 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.60,000/- is to be awarded to
the petitioner towards pain and sufferings.
iv) Attendant charges: As per Ex.P.18 discharge
summary, the petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient
for 8 days in Ellen Thoburn Cowen Memorial Hospital, Kolar.
He might have spent considerable amount towards
attendant charges during that period. Therefore,
compensation of Rs.1000 x 8 = Rs.8,000/- is awarded
towards the attendant charges.
v) Food and nourishment: As per Ex.P.18
discharge summary, the petitioner has taken treatment as
in-patient for 8 days in Ellen Thoburn Cowen Memorial
54
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
Hospital, Kolar. He might have spent considerable amount
towards food and nourishment during that period.
Therefore, compensation of Rs.800 x 8 = Rs.6,400/- is
awarded towards food and nourishment charges.
vi) Conveyance expenses: The petitioner is the
resident of Nakkalagadda Village, Gownapalli Post,
Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District, the accident has taken
place on Gownipalli-Kodipalli road, near Rajesh Medical
Shop, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District and he has taken
treatment at R.L. Jalappa Hospital and Research Centre,
Kolar. Taking into consideration the distance in between all
the above three places, compensation of Rs.5,000/- is
awarded towards conveyance.
vii) Loss of income during treatment period: The
petitioner has taken treatment for 8 days as in-patient at
Ellen Thoburn Cowen Memorial Hospital, Kolar, for the
grievous injuries sustained in the said accident He might
have taken rest for about 2 months and lost his income for
55
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
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 31 years and unfortunately he
has suffered grievous injuries. Further, he has suffered
permanent disability to the extent of 15% 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.6 has
clearly deposed in his evidence that, the petitioner needs to
undergo one more surgery for removal of implants for the
femur and tibia, it will cost about Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.
But, admittedly the P.W.6 has not issued the estimation of
cost for the said surgery. Therefore, this Court is of the
opinion that, awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/-
towards future medical expenses would be just and
reasonable.
56
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
24. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation under different heads as follows :
1. Loss of future income Rs. 4,32,000-00
2. Medical expenses 1,35,431-00
3. Pain and sufferings 60,000-00
4. Attendant charges 8,000-00
5. Food and nourishment 6,400-00
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. 7,26,831-00
90% of Total Rs. 6,54,148-00
In all, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.6,54,148/- 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.
25. Liability: Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the
respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the
insurer of the offending vehicle. As per Ex.R.1 insurance
57
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
policy, the offending motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-07-EC-
2448 was insured by respondent No.2 insurance company,
vide Policy No.201250020118802331100000, valid from 24-
01-2019 to 23-01-2024 and as on the date of accident the
said policy was valid. Further, there is no evidence on
record to show that, there is any breach of terms and
conditions of the policy. Further, the evidence placed on
record by the petitioners clearly establishes that, due to
rash and negligent riding of the rider of offending
motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-07-EC-2448 the accident has
occurred and the petitioners in all the cases have 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
damages caused by the said vehicle. The respondent No.2
being the insurer of the vehicle has to indemnify the
respondent No.1. Therefore, the respondent No.1 and 2 are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the
58
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
petitioners. However, the primary liability is on the
respondent No.2 to pay the compensation to the
petitioners. Therefore, for the above stated reasons,
holding that, the petitioner in MVC No.5841/2021 is entitled
for compensation of Rs.7,16,248/-, the petitioner in MVC
No.5842/2021 is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,13,458/-
and the petitioner in MVC No.5843/2021 is entitled for
compensation of Rs.6,54,148/- from the respondent No.2,
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till its realization. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2
in all the cases Partly Affirmative.
26. Issue No.3: In view of the above findings, I proceed to
pass the following order:
ORDER
The petitions are partly allowed
with costs.
The petitioner in MVC No.5841/2021
is entitled to compensation of
59
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
Rs.7,16,248/- (Rupees seven lakh sixteen
thousand two hundred and forty eight
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 petitioner in MVC No.5842/2021
is entitled to compensation of
Rs.3,13,458/- (Rupees three lakh
thirteen thousand four hundred and
fifty eight only) with interest at the rate
of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till
realisation.
The petitioner in MVC No.5843/2021
is entitled to compensation of
Rs.6,54,148/- (Rupees six lakh fifty four
thousand one hundred and forty eight
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 respondents in all the cases are
jointly and severally liable to pay the
60
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
above compensation amount to the
petitioners. However, the primary
liability to pay the compensation
amount is fastened on respondent No.2
– Insurance Company and it is directed
to pay the compensation amount
within two months from the date of this
order.
Out of the compensation amount
awarded to petitioners in MVC
No.5841/2021 and MVC No.5843/2021,
30% of the compensation amount with
proportionate interest shall be
deposited in the name of petitioners 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 in favour of the
petitioners in MVC No.5841/2021 and
MVC No.5843/2021 through e-payment
on proper identification and
verification.
61
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
The entire compensation amount
with proportionate interest shall be
released in favour of the petitioner in
MVC No.5842/2021, through e-payment
on proper identification and
verification.
Advocate’s fee is fixed at
Rs.2,000/- each in all the cases.
Draw award accordingly in all the
cases.
A copy of this judgment shall be
kept in file of M.V.C. No.5842/2021 and
M.V.C. No.5843/2021.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on computer, typed by him,
corrected and then pronounced in the open court this the 19 th day of June,
2025)
(Mohammed Yunus Athani)
Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners:
P.W.1: Ravi S/o Gurappa
P.W.2: Srinivasa G. @ G. Srinivasulu S/o Gurrappa
62
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
P.W.3: Srinivasa V. S/o Late Venkataramana
P.W.4: Dr. Nagakumar S/o R. Srinivas
P.W.5: Dr. Nagakumar S/o R. Srinivas
P.W.6: Dr. Nagakumar S/o R. Srinivas
P.W.7: Elizabeth Caroliine J. W/o Lucky
Documents marked on behalf of petitioners:
Ex.P.1: True copy of F.I.R.
Ex.P.2: True copy of First Information Statement
Ex.P.3: True copy of Further Requisition
Ex.P.4: True copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.5: True copy of Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.6: True copy of M.V.A. Report
Ex.P.7: True copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.8: True copy of Charge-sheet
Ex.P.9: Discharge Summaries (total 2)
Ex.P.10: Notarized copy of Aadhar Card
Ex.P.11: Medical Bills (total 62) of Rs.52,431/-
Ex.P.12: Medical Prescriptions (total 40)
Ex.P.13: True copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.14: Discharge Summary
Ex.P.15: Notarized copy of Aadhar card
Ex.P.16: Medical Bills (total 8) of Rs.48,087/-
Ex.P.17: True copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.18: Discharge Summary
63
MVC No.5841/2021 to 5843/2021
Ex.P.19: Notarized copy of Aadhar card
Ex.P.20: Medical Bills (total 17) of Rs.1,35,431/-
Ex.P.21: Clinical Notes
Ex.P.22: Case Sheet
Ex.P.23: X-ray
Ex.P.24: Clinical Notes
Ex.P.25: X-ray
Ex.P.26: Clinical Notes
Ex.P.27: X-ray
Ex.P.28: Authorization Letter
Ex.P.29: Inpatient Case Sheet
Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
R.W.1: Santhosh B.L. S/o Lakshminarayana Rao
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1: True copy of Insurance Policy
(Mohammed Yunus Athani)
Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
[ad_1]
Source link