[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
Santhosha.R vs Venkatesha.G on 8 April, 2025
KABC020297402022
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU CITY
SCCH-25
Present: Sri. KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM B.A.L, LL.M.,
Member, MACT
C/c. XXIII ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 8th day of April- 2025
MVC No.5441/2022
PETITIONER/S: Mr. Santhosha.R.,
S/o. Ramaiah,
Aged about 29 years,
R/at Banadapalya,
Thavarekere,
Tumakuru-572 122.
(By Sri. Chikkanna B.H., Adv.,)
V/s.
RESPONDENT: 1. Mr. Venkatesha.G.,
S/o. Gangaiah,
Anupanahalli Village,
Guluru Hobli,
Tumakuru District-572118
(By Sri. Abdul Roaf, Adv.,)
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.5441/2022
2. The Chola Mandalam MS
General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. By the Manager,
Unit# 04, 9th Floor, Level-06,
Golden Heights Complex,
59th 'C' Cross, Industrial subrub,
Rajajinagar 4th M block,
Bengaluru-10.
(By Sri. S.Maheswara, Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition U/Sec.166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the
injuries sustained by the petitioner in the road traffic
accident that occurred on 23.09.2022.
2. The petition averments in brief are as under:
On 23.09.2022 at about 5.15 p.m. the petitioner
was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.
KA-06-HK-4605 near Honnudike Late, Guluru Hobli,
Tumkur Taluk within the jurisdiction of Hebbur police
station, Tumakuru, at that time the rider of the DIO
Scooty bearing Reg.No.KA-06-HL-0325 has ridden the
SCCH-25 3 MVC No.5441/2022same in very high speed, rash and negligent manner
endangering human life and dashed against the motor
cycle of the petitioner from opposite direction. Due to the
said tremendous impact, the petitioner fell down and
sustained grievous injuries.
Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to
Government Hospital wherein first aid treatment was
given and later he was shifted to NIMHANS Hospital,
Bengaluru and he has spent huge amount towards
hospitalization charges, treatment medicines,
conveyance, nourishing food and other incidental charges
etc.,
Prior to the accident, petitioner was working as
Helper in Tumakuru Mahanagara Palike on contract
basis and earning Rs.18,000/- per month. Due to the
accidental injuries sustained, petitioner is not able to
continue his work and is under complete bed rest and he
is suffering from permanent disability.
SCCH-25 4 MVC No.5441/2022
The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent
No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle, are jointly
severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
Hence, prays to award compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-
with interest.
3. After service of notices, both the respondents
appeared and filed their respective written statements.
The respondent No.1 owner filed written statement
by admitting that he is the owner of the motor cycle
bearing No.KA-06-HL-0325 and the same was insured
with second respondent and at the time of accident, his
friend by name Somashekar.H. S/o. Hanumanthaiah was
riding the said motorcycle and the rider of the said motor
cycle was having valid and effective driving licence as on
the date of accident. Further contended that the accident
was occurred due to negligence on the part of petitioner
himself and there is no negligence on the part of rider of
the offending motor cycle. Further denied the age,
avocation and income of the petitioner. The compensation
SCCH-25 5 MVC No.5441/2022
claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and
exorbitant. Hence the respondent No.1 prays to dismiss
the petition against him.
Respondent No.2 – insurance company appeared
through its counsel and filed written statement by
admitting the issuance of policy to the motor cycle
bearing No. KA-06-HL-0325 and the liability of this
respondent, if any, is subject to proof of the policy. This
respondent has specifically denies the occurrence, mode
of the accident and also involvement of motor cycle
bearing No. KA-06-HL-0325. This respondent further
contended that the rider of the motor cycle was not
having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of
accident. Further denied the age, avocation, alleged
disability and income of the petitioner. The compensation
claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and
exorbitant. Hence, the respondent No.2 prays to dismiss
the petition against it.
SCCH-25 6 MVC No.5441/2022
4. On the basis of the rival contention, the
following issues are framed by this court:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, the
accident took place on 23.09.2022 at
about 05.15 p.m. near Honnudike
Lake, Guluru Hobli, Tumkur within the
jurisdiction of Hebbur Police Station,
Tumakuru, due to rash and negligent
act of riding of rider of scooty bearing
registration No.KA-06-HL-0325 and in
the said accident petitioner sustained
injuries?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the quan-
tum? From whom?
3. What order or award?
5. In order to prove the claim petition, the
petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the
documents at Ex.P.1 to 11 . Also examined two witnesses
as PW.2 & PW.3 and got marked the documents at
Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.17. On behalf of the 2nd respondent,
S.S.Ranganna, Record Keeper, Government Hospital,
Tumakuru was examined as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1
and R.2.
SCCH-25 7 MVC No.5441/2022
6. Heard the arguments and perused the material
evidence that are available on record.
The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 relied
on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka reported in ILR 2010 KAR 2439 between
Sri. Subash Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. By its Manager and Others and argued that the
petitioner is continued in the service and as such, he is
not eligible for the compensation under the head of loss of
income during laid up period and future loss of income.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under.
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative;
Issue No.2 : In the affirmative
Issue No.3 : As per final orders
for the following:-
: R E A S O N S:
ISSUE NO.1 :
8. That by reiterating all the averments made in the
petition, the petitioner has filed his affidavit in lieu of-
SCCH-25 8 MVC No.5441/2022
examination in-chief, which is considered as P.W.1. In
support of his case, he has produced true copies of FIR,
complaint, spot mahazar, seizure mahazar, IMV report,
wound certificate and charge sheet which are marked
under Ex.P.1 to 6.
9. On perusal of Ex.P1 – FIR is registered on the
basis of first information given by the co-brother of the
petitioner. The contents of Ex.P.1 is in consonance with
the contents of petition about the rash and negligence
riding of the vehicle bearing No. KA.06-HL-0325. The
respondent No.1 & 2 appeared through their advocate
and respondent No.1 being the owner of motor cycle
bearing No.KA.06-HL-0325 admitted the fact of accident.
The respondent No.2 also not made out any grounds by
disputing the fact of accident.
10. Ex.P2 is spot mahazar and Ex.P.3 seizure
mahazar drawn by the police at the time of investigation.
On perusal of the contents of Ex.P2 spot mahazar and
Ex.P.3 seizure mahazar appended therein, the accident
SCCH-25 9 MVC No.5441/2022
spot is in the left side portion of the road in which
petitioner was proceeding. As per the contents of
mahazar and photograph appended in Ex.P.3, the rider of
the offending motorcycle came to his wrong side and
dashed against the motor cycle of the petitioner.
11. The Ex.P4 is the IMV report wherein the
motorcycle of the petitioner has got damages in its front
side and the offending motor cycle bearing No. KA-06-
HL-0325 has got damages in its front right side. This
shows that the rider of motor cycle bearing No. KA-06-
HL-0325 who came from opposite side came to his wrong
side and dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner
who was proceeding in left side road. Thus the contents
of mahazar and IMV report prima facie established the
negligence of the rider of motor cycle bearing No.
KA-06-HL-0325.
12. The Ex.P.5 is wound certificate and Ex.P.9
being the discharge summary wherein supported the
case of the petitioner. The contents of Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.9
SCCH-25 10 MVC No.5441/2022
corroborates with the contents of complaint. Ex.P.6
charge sheet is filed against the rider of the offending
motorcycle bearing No. KA.06-HL-0325 for the offence
punishable under Sec. 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. By
producing these documents, the petitioner prima-facie
established the occurrence of accident and also the
alleged negligence of the rider of the offending motorcycle
bearing No.KA.06-HL-0325.
13. Wherefore in the absence of any cogent
evidence which could rebut the assertions made by PW-1
on oath supported by Ex.P-6 which is the charge sheet
and the documents annexed therewith, this court should
not have any impediment to conclude that the said
documents prima-facie suffice to hold that accident,
occurred due to rash and actionable negligence on the
part of the rider of motor cycle bearing No.
KA.06-HL-0325. The view taken by this Court that the
police records are prima- facie proof in support of the
case of the petitioner, is supported by the decision
SCCH-25 11 MVC No.5441/2022
rendered in Kishan Gopal and another Vs. Lala and
others reported in 2013 (4) T.A.C 5 (S.C.), wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held thus:
In view of the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal
should have considered both oral and
documentary evidence referred to supra and
appreciated the same in the proper perspective
and recorded the finding on the contentious issue
No. 1 & 2 in the affirmative. But it has recorded the
finding in the negative on the above issues by
adverting to certain statements of evidence of AW-
1 and referring to certain alleged discrepancies in
the FIR without appreciating entire evidence of AW-
1 and AW-2 on record properly and also not
assigned valid reasons in not accepting their
testimony. The Tribunal should have taken into
consideration the pleadings of the parties and
legal evidence on record in its entirety and held
that the accident took place on 19.07.1992, due to
which Tikaram sustained grievous injuries and
succumbed to the same and the case was
registered by the Uniara Police Station under
Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC read with Sections
133 and 181 of the M.V. Act against the first and
second respondents. The registration of FIR and
filing of the charge-sheet against respondent Nos.1
SCCH-25 12 MVC No.5441/2022& 2 are not in dispute, therefore, the Tribunal
should have no option but to accept the entire
evidence on record and recorded the finding on the
contentious issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the
appellants.
(Emphasis supplied by me)
14. It is necessary to reassert that in a claim for
compensation filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, the claimant is expected to prove the inc ident
on basis of principle of preponderance of probabilities and the view
taken by this Court is fortified by the decision rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kusum and others V/s Satbir and others
which is reported in 2011 SAR (CIVIL) 319. Further the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road
Transport Corporation and others reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530 has
observed that, it is necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an
accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be
possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants are merely required to
establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The
standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied.
Further the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in National Insurance
SCCH-25 13 MVC No.5441/2022
Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishnappa and another reported in 2001 ACJ 1105,
where the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka considering the fact
that the rider of the offending vehicle was not examined to
prove any contributory negligence on the part of scooterist held
that the accident had occurred due to rash or negligent driving
by the rider of the offending van.
15. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2
insurance company vehemently argues that there is an
inordinate delay of 3 days in lodging the FIR and the
same cannot be brushed aside lightly, instead has to be
construed as a circumstance showing that the case is an
afterthought and the offending vehicle is implicated in
the case even though it is not involved in the accident.
But not every delay would move this court to view the
case of the petitioners doubtfully. Because there might be
genuine circumstances that could have contributed to
the delay. In fact only if the delay is left unexplained the
same needs to be viewed seriously. No doubt in the facts
of this case, the accident occurred on 23.09.2022 at
SCCH-25 14 MVC No.5441/2022
about 5-15 p.m., but the FIR was lodged on 26.09.2022
at about 12.30 p.m., and hence it is evident that the FIR
is lodged after 3 days of occurrence of the accident. But
the informant in the Ex.P1 first information it is stated
that soon after the accident the petitioner was shifted to
hospital and underwent the surgery and also as there
was no one to look after the petitioner, they were unable
to give the complaint immediately. The Ex.P.5 Wound
certificate shows that the petitioner was taken to
Tumakuru Government hospital on 23.09.2022 itself
with a history of RTA. Ex.P.9 being the Discharge
Summary also discloses that the petitioner admitted to
NIMHANS Hospital on 23.09.2022 with a history of RTA
(Two-wheeler hit two-wheeler). These documents
evidentiates that the petitioner sustained injuries in the
RTA which involves two motorcycles. Further the
respondent No.2 summoned MLC document of the
Tumakuru Govt. Hospital wherein it also evidentiates
that the petitioner was taken to their hospital with
SCCH-25 15 MVC No.5441/2022
alleged history of RTA at around 7.00 p.m. on 23.09.2022
near Honnudike and the petitioner was driving the two-
wheeler and hit by another two-wheeler. These
documents supported the case of the petitioner regarding
the occurrence of accident. Further the discharge
summary marked at Ex.P9 also discloses that on the date
of accident itself the petitioner was admitted to their
hospital with an history of RTA. The endeavor of the
parents or injured usually will be getting the treatment
to the injured than thinking about the legal formalities.
Perhaps the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi v.
Badrinarayan and others reported in AIR 2011 SC 1226, has
observed thus:
“The purpose of lodging the FIR in motor accident cases is
primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of
criminal offences. Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of
accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for
compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground
for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although
lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases,
delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for
such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate
SCCH-25 16 MVC No.5441/2022satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of
reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless
kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of
tranquillity of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if there
is delay, the same deserve to be condoned. In such
circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more
significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent
reasons.
If the court finds that there is no indication of
fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to
implicate innocent persons then even if there is a delay
in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed
merely on that ground.”
(Emphasis supplied by me)
16. In the judgment reported in 2011 ACJ 911 between
Ravi V/s. Badrinarayan and others, wherein it is held as
follows;
“18. The cumulative effect of the
aforesaid events clearly established
that accident had taken place on
7.10.2001 at about 8.30 in the
morning on account of rash and
negligent reversing of the truck by
driver Badrinarayan, owned by
Respondent No. 2, Prahlad Singh.
Under these circumstances, it cannot
be said that delay in lodging the FIR
SCCH-25 17 MVC No.5441/2022could have proved fatal to the claim
case filed by Ravi.
19. Narration of the aforesaid events
would show the bonafides of Suresh.
As mentioned herein above, a
consistent stand has been taken right
from the beginning till the lodging of
the FIR. The chronological events
narrated herein above inspire
confidence and it does not smack of a
concocted case which has been filed
against the driver and the owner of
the vehicle only with an intention to
get compensation.
20. It is well-settled that delay in
lodging FIR cannot be a ground to
doubt the claimant’s case. Knowing
the Indian conditions as they are, we
cannot expect a common man to first
rush to the Police Station immediately
after an accident. Human nature and
family responsibilities occupy the
mind of kith and kin to such an extent
that they give more importance to get
the victim treated rather than to rush
to the Police Station. Under such
circumstances, they are not expected
to act mechanically with promptitude
in lodging the FIR with the Police.
Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot
be the ground to deny justice to the
victim. In cases of delay, the courts
are required to examine the evidence
with a closer scrutiny and in doing so;
the contents of the FIR should also be
scrutinized more carefully. If court
finds that there is no indication of
SCCH-25 18 MVC No.5441/2022fabrication or it has not been
concocted or engineered to implicate
innocent persons then, even if there is
a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim
case cannot be dismissed merely on
that ground.
21. The purpose of lodging the FIR in
such type of cases is primarily to
intimate the police to initiate
investigation of criminal offences.
Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum
of accident so that the victim is able to
lodge a case for compensation but
delay in doing so cannot be the main
ground for rejecting the claim petition.
In other words, although lodging of
FIR is vital in deciding motor accident
claim cases, delay in lodging the same
should not be treated as fatal for such
proceedings, if claimant has been able
to demonstrate satisfactory and
cogent reasons for it. There could be
variety of reasons in genuine cases for
delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith
and kin of the victim are able to regain
a certain level of tranquility of mind
and are composed to lodge it, even if,
there is delay, the same deserves to be
condoned. In such circumstances, the
authenticity of the FIR assumes much
more significance than delay in
lodging thereof supported by cogent
reasons.
22. In the case in hand, the Claims
Tribunal as well as the High Court,
committed grave error in not
appreciating the mental agony
SCCH-25 19 MVC No.5441/2022through which Suresh was passing,
whose son was severely injured.
23. In the light of the aforesaid
discussion, we are of the considered
opinion that the MACT as well as High
Court committed error in coming to
the conclusion that lodging the FIR
belatedly would result in dismissal of
the claim petition”.
17. Hence the delay of 3 days, in the light of reasons
assigned by the PW.1 and also as mentioned in the
Ex.P1, complaint, Ex.R.2- MLC and Ex.P.9 Discharge
summary it cannot be considered as inordinate.
18. In view of the ratio laid down in the authorities
referred to above and applying the settled principle of law
to the case at hand, which is further supported by the
oral and documentary evidence adduced by PW-1, this
Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the accident
leading to this case indeed occurred due to the actionable
negligence on the part of the rider of motor cycle bearing
No. KA.06-HL-0325 resulting in petitioner sustaining
injuries. During the course of cross examination of
petitioner, except a suggestion nothing has been elicited
SCCH-25 20 MVC No.5441/2022
so as to disprove the case of the petitioner. There are no
material evidence to prove that the petitioner’s negligence
was the reason for the said accident.
19. As per well settled principle of law, the
standard of proof in the claim petition like the present is
preponderance of the probability. There are no grounds
to disbelieve the case of petitioner in the absence of
rebuttal evidence. All the materials available on record
leading to show that, petitioner has sustained injuries in
the accident took place on 23.09.2022 which is caused
by the rider of the motor cycle bearing No. KA.06-HL-
0325 which belonging to respondent No.1. There is no
reasons to discard the evidence of petitioner. In the claim
petition like present one strict proof is not necessary but
preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. Accordingly,
issue No.1 answered in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2:
20. As already held herein above, the petitioner
has proved that he has sustained injuries in RTA which
SCCH-25 21 MVC No.5441/2022
is caused by the vehicle of respondent No.1. Hence, the
petitioner is entitle for compensation. Now the quantum
of compensation is to be ascertained on different heads.
21. The petitioner examined Medical record officer
in Medical Record Department, NIMHANS Hospital as
PW.3, through him got marked Ex.P16 to 17.
a) PAIN AND AGONY:- At the time of alleged
accident the petitioner was aged about 25 years. The
petitioner has not produced Aadhaar card. But as per
the driving licence marked at Ex.P7 shows that the
petitioner was born on 26.08.1992. The accident took
place in the year 2022. Hence, as on the date of accident,
the petitioner was aged about 30 years. As per the
discharge summary marked at Ex.P.9 petitioner was
admitted to NIMHANS Hospital on 23.09.2022 and
discharged on 30.09.2022 it shows that he sustained
Right Fronto-temporoparietal acute SDH with Frontal
contusion and he underwent Right Fronto-
temporoparietal craniotomy, evacuation of Acute SDH,
SCCH-25 22 MVC No.5441/2022
augmentative duroplasty and Hinge cranioplasty under
GA on 24.09.2022. As per Ex.P.5 the petitioner got 2
injuries and 2nd injury is grievous in nature. By
considering the nature of the injuries and period he
spent to overcome the pain and other allied effects of the
accident Rs.80,000/- may be awarded to the petitioner
under this head.
b) Medical expenses: The petitioner has produced
medical bills as per Ex.P.10, amounting to Rs.3,166/-.
These bills are not disputed by the respondents and no
grounds are made out to disbelieve these bills. Looking
to the facts and circumstances of the case in combined
with the alleged injuries the petitioner is entitle by
rounding off the same i.e., Rs.3,200/- under this head.
c) Loss of income during laid up period and Loss
of Future income: The petitioner has stated that he
was working as helper in Tumakuru Mahanagara Palike
on contract basis and earning Rs.18,000/- p.m. To prove
SCCH-25 23 MVC No.5441/2022
the said fact the petitioner has not produced any
document. In this regard when he was cross-examined he
has stated that the salary was used to be credited to his
UCO bank account and he can produce the document to
show that he left the job and the bank statement to show
that he is not working. The answers given by the PW.1
regarding his employment and his termination and also
the payment received by him is hereby quoted for better
appreciation of this point:
“I have not produced any document to show that
………….. I will examine the contractor and
produce the necessary documents.
As answered by the PW.1 he has left the job as he is
unable to work and he can produce the documents to
show that he has left the job. Further the petitioner also
stated that he can produce the account statement and
also can examine the contractor to show that he is not
continued with his work due to the disabilities caused to
him by the accidental injuries. In spite of sufficient
SCCH-25 24 MVC No.5441/2022opportunities, the petitioner has not produced any
document to show that he is not continued with his
earlier work. Thus no explanation is offered by the
petitioner for non production of the documents to over
come the contention of the respondent No.2 insurance
company.
The up to date account statement or the contractor is
not examined before this Tribunal as admitted by the
petitioner in the cross-examination. In spite of sufficient
opportunity the petitioner neither examined his employer
nor produced any documents to show that, he has left
the said job due to the permanent disability caused to
him by the accident. In this regard if he rely on Section
114 of Evidence Act which states as follows;
Section 114. Court may presume existence of
certain facts.
The Court may presume the existence of
any fact which it thinks likely to have happened,
regard being had to the common course of
natural events, human conduct and public and
SCCH-25 25 MVC No.5441/2022private business, in their relation to the facts of
the particular case.
Illustrations
The Court may presume –
(g) that evidence which could be and is not
produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to
the person who withholds it;
When a party has evidence with him to prove the
existence of few facts and if such party has not produced
those documents and offers no explanation of non
production of such evidence the adverse inference has to
be drawn. By applying the said principle of law in this
case the petitioner has not produced any documents to
show that, he is not continued in service, the adverse
inference has to drawn by holding that, the petitioner
continued in service. The petitioner has not produced any
documents to show that, he has left the job. By
considering the same this Tribunal is holding that, the
petitioner has not sustained any future loss. Accordingly,
the question of awarding compensation towards loss of
SCCH-25 26 MVC No.5441/2022
future income does not arise.’ That is to say as the actual
financial loss arising out of physical disability is not
made out by the claimant, he is not entitled for
compensation towards ‘loss of future income’ and loss of
income during laid up period.
d) FOOD, NOURISHMENT AND CONVEYANCE; As per
Ex.P.9 discharge summary, the petitioner took treatment
as inpatient for a period of 8 days. As per wound
certificate marked at Ex.P.5 the injury sustained by the
petitioner is grievous in nature. By considering the
nature of the injuries and period he spent to overcome
the pain and other allied effects of the accident. Hence
looking to the treatment taken by the petitioner and
injuries sustained he is entitled for compensation of
Rs.70,000/- towards food and nourishment,
conveyance.
e) ATTENDANT CHARGES: The petitioner sustained
grievous injury in the accident. The petitioner has spent
SCCH-25 27 MVC No.5441/2022
8 days in the hospital and there is no evidence or
pleading in this regard to show that the petitioner is in
need of attendant. But by considering the nature of the
injuries as discussed above, it may be considered to
award attendant charges at Rs.1,000/- per day i.e.,
Rs.8,000/- in total.
f) Towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life:
The petitioner admitted to the hospital for the
injuries sustained by him, which might certainly have
deprived him of the basic comforts and enjoyment. The
petitioner examined Dr. Shailesh, Sr. Consultant, Neuro
Surgeon who examined the petitioner for the assessment
and stated that the petitioner has moderate disability.
The injuries of moderate disability as per the evidence of
PW.2 doctor, certainly affects the day-to-day personal life
and enjoyment of the life. Therefore, it is just and proper
to award a reasonable sum of Rs.80,000/- under this
head.
SCCH-25 28 MVC No.5441/2022
g) Towards future medical expenses: No evidence
is available to hold that the petitioner is in need of future
medical expenses. As such, the petitioner is not entitled
for any compensation under this head.
Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation
under the following heads:
a. Towards pain and agony Rs. 80,000/-
b. Towards medical expenses Rs. 3,200/-
c. Towards loss of income during Nil
laid up period
d. Towards disability Nil
e. Towards food, nourishment and Rs. 70,000/-
conveyance
f. Towards attendant charges Rs. 8,000/-
g. Towards loss of amenities Rs. 80,000/-
h. Towards future medical expenses Nil
Total Rs. 2,41,200/-
22. Liability:- According to the petitioner the
respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the
insurer of the offending vehicle. The respondent No.2 in
its objection statement has admitted the issuance of
policy to the motor cycle bearing No. KA-06-HL-0325. No
SCCH-25 29 MVC No.5441/2022grounds are made out by the respondent No.2 by showing
the violation of policy conditions by the respondent No.1
owner. Hence, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner
and the respondent No.2 insurance company shall
indemnify the compensation on behalf of the respondent
No.1. The petitioner is entitle for compensation with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a., Accordingly, this issue
answered in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.3:
23. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner U/s
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby
partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for total
compensation amount of Rs.2,41,200/-
(Rupees Two lakh Forty one thousand two
hundred only) with interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. (excluding future medical expenses),
from the date of petition till the realization
from respondents.
SCCH-25 30 MVC No.5441/2022
The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit
the compensation amount within 60 days
from the date of this order.
By considering the quantum of
compensation office is directed to release the
entire amount by taking necessary vouchers
and documents.
Advocate fee is fixed at 1,500/-.
Draw up award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer,
corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the
8th day of April, 2025)
(Kanchi Mayanna Goutam)
C/c. XXIII ADDL.JUDGE
Court of Small Causes & MACT.,
Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined for petitioners:
PW.1 Mr. Santhosh.R
PW.2 Dr. Shailesh.A.V. Rao
PW.3 Raajanna S.K.
List of documents marked on behalf of the
petitioners:
Ex.P1 FIR with Complaint
Ex.P2 Spot Mahazar
Ex.P3 Seizure mahazar
Ex.P.4 IMV report
SCCH-25 31 MVC No.5441/2022
Ex.P5 Wound certificate
Ex.P6 Charge sheet
Ex.P7 Notarised copy of DL
Ex.P8 OPD card from District hospital, Tumkur
Ex.P9 Discharge summary
Ex.P10 Medical bills
Ex.P11 2 photos with CD
Ex.P12 OPD records
Ex.P13 Neuro Psychological report
Ex.P14 Mini Mental State examination report
Ex.P15 One X-ray with report
Ex.P16 Authorization letter
Ex.P17 Case sheet
List of witnesses examined for Respondents:
RW.1 S.S.Ranganna
List of documents marked on behalf of the Respondents:
Ex.R.1 Authorization letter
Ex.R.2 Copy of MLC register extract
(Kanchi Mayanna Goutam)
C/c. XXIII ADDL.JUDGE
Court of Small Causes & MACT.,
Bengaluru.
Digitally signed
KANCHI by KANCHI
MAYANNA
MAYANNA GOUTAM
GOUTAM Date: 2025.04.17
13:56:42 +0530
[ad_2]
Source link