Bangalore District Court
Sekar.K vs Sheshadri.R on 18 June, 2025
SCCH-21 1 MVC No.149/2023
KABC0B0000312023
IN THE COURT OF XVII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES & MEMBER, M.A.C.T,
MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (SCCH-21)
PRESENT: Vijaykumar S. Hiremath., L.LB.,
XVII ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small
Causes & Member, M.A.C.T., Bengaluru.
Dated this the 18th Day of June-2025
M.V.C. No.149/2023
Petitioner/s: 1. Sri. Shekar S/o Kandasamy,
Aged about 51 years,
#82/12, Anandhan House,
10th Cross, Seenappa Layout,
Blessing Main Road,
Byrathi, Kothanur,
Bangalore-560077.
(Since petitioner is under coma
due to severe head injury, he is not
able to understand and sign the
papers. Hence, Rep. By his wife
Sunanda W/o K. Sekar and natural
guardian, Aged about 44 years.)
(By Sri. M. Subramani Adv.,)
Vs.
Respondent/s: 1. Sheshadri R.
S/o G. Ravindra,
#170, Doddadunnasandra (V),
Devanagundhi post, Hoskote Taluk,
Anugondanahalli Hobli,
Bangalore-560 067.
SCCH-21 2 MVC No.149/2023
(Owner of the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.
KA-53-HJ-7371)
(Exparte)
2. The Oriental Insurance co. Ltd.,
T. P. Hub, Regional office,
No.44/4, Leo Shopping Complex,
Residency Road Cross,
Bangalore-25.
[Policy No.421400/31/2022/3215
Valid from 08.10.2021 to 07.10.2026]
(By Sri. B. R. Venkatesh Kamath, Adv.)
Date of institution of the : 06-01-2023
petition
Nature of the Petition : U/Sec.166 of M. V. Act
Date of commencement of : 04-11-2023
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 18-06-2025
was pronounced
Duration of the Petition Year/s Month/s Day/s
02 05 12
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 166 of
Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- for
the accidental injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident
took place on 19.09.2022.
SCCH-21 3 MVC No.149/2023
2. The Brief facts of the petitioner’s case is as under:
It is the case of the petitioner that on 19.09.2022 at about
03.45 p.m., the petitioner was riding the TVS Jupiter bearing Reg.
No. KA-41-EJ-5026 from H. Cross towards Chintamani slowly and
cautiously by following all traffic rules and regulations and by
wearing Head-guard, when reached near Vyjakuru village Gate, at
that time one Two-wheeler bearing Reg. No. KA-53-HJ-7371 ridden
by its rider in a rash and negligent manner endangering to human
life came from same direction and dashed against the petitioner
vehicle from behind. Due to forced impact, petitioner fell down and
sustained severe head injury and other bodily injuries. Immediately,
petitioner was shifted to Silicon City Hospital, wherein he was
treated as inpatient for one day and further was shifted to Aster
CMI Hospital, wherein he was treated as inpatient and petitioner
has spent more than Rs.35,00,000/- towards medical expenses,
food, nourishment and conveyance charges.
The petitioner further submitted that, prior to the accident he
was heal and healthy and aged about 51 years, the petitioner was
working as Sales Manager at Alpha Poly Products and earning a
sum of Rs.65,000/- p.m. Due to the injuries sustained in the
accident the petitioner has become permanently disabled and
SCCH-21 4 MVC No.149/2023
unable to look after the said work. Respondent No.1 is the owner of
the offending vehicle and Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the
offending vehicle. Hence, the respondents are jointly and severally
liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the
petitioner has filed this petition for a compensation of
Rs.1,00,00,000/- with interest.
3. After service of notice, respondent No.1 remained absent.
Hence, placed Exparte.
The respondent No.2 in his written statement denied the
allegations made in the plaint and submitted that, the petition is
not maintainable either under law or on facts. Further, this
respondent admits the issuance of policy to the offending
motorcycle and liability if any is subjected to the terms and
conditions of the policy. This respondent further states that, the
rider of motorcycle was not holding a valid and effective driving
license to ride motorcycle at the time of accident. This respondent
further submitted that, the facts have been twisted and given
wrong description and a false charge-sheet has been made against
the alleged rider of motorcycle. Further this respondent denied the
age, occupation and income of the petitioner. The petitioner
SCCH-21 5 MVC No.149/2023
colluding with the police filed the false case. By these reasons, it is
prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, my learned predecessor
framed the following issues are as under:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, on
19.09.2022 at about 3.45 p.m., when he
was riding the TVS Jupiter bearing Reg. No.
KA-41-EJ-5026 from H. Cross towards
Chintamani slowly and cautiously by
following all traffic rules, by wearing head-
guard and reached near Vyjakuru Village
Gate, at that time one two-wheeler bearing
Reg. No. KA-53-HJ-7371 ridden by its rider
in a rash and negligent manner
endangering to human life, came from same
direction and dashed against the
petitioner’s vehicle from behind and caused
the accident and due to the forced impact,
petitioner fell down and sustained grievous
injuries as alleged by him?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the
compensation? If so, how much and from
whom?
3. What order or Award?
5. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, one witness
by name Manju Bhargavi M. G is examined as P.W.1 and got
marked documents at Ex.P.1 and P.2, Dr. Veeresha U. Mathad
examined as PW.2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.3 to
Ex.P.8 and examined wife of petitioner by name one Sunanda as
PW.3 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.22 and also
SCCH-21 6 MVC No.149/2023
examined one K. Vairamuthu as PW.4 and got marked the
documents at Ex.P.23 to Ex.P.27 and closed their side. On the other
hand, two witnesses are examined as RW.1 and RW.2 and in all got
marked documents at Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.10 on behalf of respondents.
6. Heard arguments of both the sides and perused the
materials placed on record.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under;
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2: Partly in the affirmative.
Issue No.3: As per final order,
for the following:
:REASONS:
8. ISSUE No.1: The petitioner has contended that on the
above said date, time and place he met with accident and sustained
grievous injuries occurred due to rash and negligent riding by the
rider of offending vehicle.
9. The wife of petitioner who is injured in this accident is
examined as PW-3 by reiterating the averments made in the
petition. She has produced the documents at Ex.P.9 to 22. Ex.P.9 is
the FIR, Ex.P.10 is the complaint, Ex.P.11 is the spot mahazar,
Ex.P.12 is the IMV Report, Ex.P.13 is the Wound Certificate, Ex.P.14
SCCH-21 7 MVC No.149/2023
is the Notice u/s 133 of M. V. Act and Reply Notice, Ex.P.15 is the
Charge-Sheet, Ex.P.16 is the Discharge summary card, Ex.P.17 is
the Notarized copy of Aadhar card of petitioner, Ex.P.18 is the
Notarized copy of Aadhar card of PW.3, Ex.P.19 is the Driving
License, Ex.P.20 is the Termination Letter, Ex.P.21 is the Bank
Account Statement and Ex.P.22 is the Medical bills.
10. On going through the materials, it could be seen that
on 19.09.2022 at about 03.45 p.m., the petitioner was riding
the TVS Jupiter bearing Reg. No. KA-41-EJ-5026 from H.
Cross towards Chintamani slowly and cautiously by following
all traffic rules and regulations and by wearing Head-guard,
when reached near Vyjakuru village Gate, at that time one
Two-wheeler bearing Reg. No. KA-53-HJ-7371 ridden by its
rider in a rash and negligent manner endangering to human
life came from same direction and dashed against the
petitioner vehicle from behind. Due to forced impact,
petitioner fell down and sustained severe head injury and
other bodily injuries. Immediately, petitioner was shifted to
Silicon City Hospital, wherein he was treated as inpatient for
one day and further was shifted to Aster CMI Hospital,
wherein he was treated as inpatient. Accordingly, the
SCCH-21 8 MVC No.149/2023
Chintamani Traffic Police have registered a case in Cr.No.367/2022.
After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has
filed charge sheet against the rider of offending vehicle for the
offences punishable U/s 279 and 338 of IPC.
11. The certified copy of the First Information (First
information statement/s complaint in common para-lace)
lodged before the Chintamani Traffic Police has been marked
as Ex.P.1. On receiving the First Information, the Station
House Officer chose to register a case in Crime No. 367/2022.
The said certified copy of First Information Report (F.I.R.) is
marked as Ex.P.9.
12. Ex.P.9 to 15 are the only documents, which are to be
scrutinized to arrive at conclusion- whether the accident was
owing to the negligent manner of riding of rider of offending
motorcycle. The Ex.P.11 (spot panchanama), clearly discloses
the place of accident and that the police, after registering the
First Information, held investigation and filed the Ex.P.15,
Charge-Sheet against the rider of motorcycle U/s. 279 and
338 of IPC. The Ex.P.12 i.e., certified copy of the IMV Report
discloses that, the accident was not occurred due to any
mechanical defects of the vehicle in question.
SCCH-21 9 MVC No.149/2023
13. Contesting respondent i.e., Insurance company has
taken defence that, insured vehicle involved in the accident
was being driven slowly by observing traffic rules and the
said unfortunate accident occurred on account of the
carelessness on the part of petitioner riding TVS Jupiter and
was halted the vehicle all of a sudden in the middle of the
road without any indication.
14. Learned counsel for insurance company argued that,
the rider of the offending vehicle alone was not negligent. He
further argued that, accident has occurred due to sole and
negligent act of the petitioner and the driver of KSRTC
bearing Reg. No. KA-40-F-1485. During the cross examination
of RW.1, who is the Investigating officer, learned counsel for
insurance company posed question that, the alleged accident
is caused due to the negligent act of petitioner as well as
driver of KSRTC bus, but witness denied the said suggestions.
But on perusal of written statement it clearly goes to show
that, Insurance company has not taken any defence in
respect of involvement of driver of the KSRTC bus. For the
first time he has taken defence during the course of cross
examination of RW.1. It is well settled principal of law that,
SCCH-21 10 MVC No.149/2023
any amount of evidence without pleading is inadmissible
evidence. The defence taken by the insurance company is
contrary to each other. Moreover, insurance company has not
produced any materials before the court that accident is
occurred due to composite negligence of petitioner as well as
driver of the KSRTC Bus. Mere denial or suggestion during the
course of cross examination will not help in any manner to
prove or disprove the negligence. Moreover, Investigating
Officer examined himself before this Court as RW.1 and
deposed that, accident is caused due to the rider of the
offending vehicle i.e., Pulsar motorcycle. Apart, insurance
company has not challenged the charge-sheet submitted by
the Investigating Officer as well as Insurance company has
not raised any probable defence to show that, accident is not
occurred due to driver of offending vehicle.
15. In view of the detailed discussion held above, I am of
the opinion that, the petitioner has proved negligence on the part of
rider of the offending vehicle and as such the accident in question
had taken place. By relying on evidence of P.W.3, RW.1 and the
Police records, I am of the considered view that the accident in
question took place due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of
SCCH-21 11 MVC No.149/2023
motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-41-EJ-5026. Accordingly, I
answer Issue No.1 in the affirmative.
16. ISSUE No.2: Learned counsel for petitioner submits that
because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle, the said accident has taken place and due to the
accidental injuries, now the claimant is not able to talk fluently, he
has lost partial memory, cannot understand the conversation and is
not able to do day-to-day activities without the help of others.
Further, she argued that, even till date, he is depending upon
others for his movement and the presence of attendant is
necessary for him. In support of her submission, she referred oral
evidence of doctors and the documentary evidence. Refuting the
said submission learned counsel for insurance company denying all
the assertions made in the petition and also denying the arguments
of counsel for petitioner in respect of injuries.
17. The PW.3 in her evidence has specifically deposed that,
after the accident petitioner was shifted to Aster CMI Hospital,
wherein petitioner was treated as inpatient and took treatment.
PW.3 has stated in the petition that, petitioner is undergoing deep
mental shock, severe pain and sufferings. Further on perusal of
SCCH-21 12 MVC No.149/2023
doctor evidence as well as Wound certificate, i.e., Ex.P.13 it reveals
that, petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the
petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads:
18. PAIN AND SUFFERING: In the petition as well as in
his evidence PW.3 deposed that, immediately after the accident
petitioner was shifted to Aster CMI Hospital, wherein petitioner was
admitted as inpatient from 20.09.2022 to 10.10.2022 i.e., for 20
days. The PW.3 has produced the discharge summary marked at
Ex.P.16 wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner was admitted in
the said hospitals for total 20 days. He has produced the wound
certificate marked at Ex.P.13, which reveals that, petitioner has
sustained Severe head injury and CLW over right thigh and the
doctor has opined that the injury is grievous in nature. Hence, it is
clear that during the above said period the petitioner suffered lot of
pain and inconvenience. Considering all these aspects this tribunal
has granted Rs.75,000/- under the head of pain and suffering.
19. MEDICAL EXPENSES: The petitioner has pleaded in
the petition that he has spent huge amount towards medical
expenses. In support of his plea, he has produced 08 medical bills
which are marked at Ex.P.22 to the tune of Rs.9,96,139/-. Hence,
looking to the injuries sustained and treatment taken by the
SCCH-21 13 MVC No.149/2023
petitioner as well as on calculation of bills, the petitioner is entitled
for compensation of Rs.8,06,139/- towards medical expenses.
20. LOSS OF INCOME DURING THE LAID UP PERIOD: The
petitioner has produced Ex.P.16 Discharge summary issued by Aster
CMI Hospital, Bangalore, it reveals that, the petitioner took
treatment from the said hospitals for about 20 days as inpatient.
Hence, at least 2 months is required to recover from the accidental
injuries. It is the further contended that, the injured petitioner was
working as Sales Manager at Alpha Poly Products, Kumbalagodu
Industrial Area and earning Rs.65,000/- per month, in support of
his income he has produced the evidence of Departmental Head of
Sales and Human Resources Department as PW.4 and produced the
documents at Ex.P.23 to Ex.P.27. On perusal of these documents it
reveals that, petitioner is working as Sales Manager and drawing
average salary of Rs.47,000/- per month. Hence, the income of the
petitioner is considered as Rs.47,000/- p.m. Hence, 2 months is to
be considered as loss of income. Hence, he is entitled for
compensation of Rs.94,000/- under this head.
21. Towards loss of future earning capacity on
account of Permanent Physical Disability-
SCCH-21 14 MVC No.149/2023
The petitioner to prove his disability, he has produced the
evidence of Dr. Veeresha U Mathad who depose that, petitioner
diagnosed to have suffered following injuries :
– Diffuse Subarachniod Heamorrhage.
– Cerebral Oedema.
– Focal Haemorrhages in right basal Ganglia.
– Diffuse Axonal Injury.
– Left Frontal Meningioma.
and PW.2 further deposed that, Petitioner has following
complaints
-Memory loss, forgets things – forgets names,
conversations and difficult to Identify and recognize people.
– Gets angry easily.
-Difficulty in speaking.
-Difficulty in walking.
-Weakness of right hand and leg.
-Weakness of right half of the body.
-Needs support of others or the help of walker to walk.
-He can’t get up or walk without the support of others,
dependent on others for daily living activities.
-Not able to do the job.
Speech- speech is slurred, slow to speak, not clear,
not able to understand spoken words.
Petitioner has RIGHT HEMIPARESIS,
Petitioner is not able to get up or walk independently.
He requires support of others.
His MRI scan of brain was done on 19/10/2023.
SCCH-21 15 MVC No.149/2023
Compared to the previous scan reports, the present scan
shows that all the brain injuries are healed with Gliosis
(permanent brain scarring).
He underwent a detailed neuropsychological
evaluation by the psychologist. His neuropsychological
assessment was done on 26/10/2023. He has a combines
neurobehavioral and cognitive disability of 36.66%.
Combined neurobehavioral and cognitive disability –
36.66% = 37%
Based on Neuropsychologival assessment report.
Motor system disability – Minimum of 61% (61-80%)
Based on mRS scale patient comes under category 4.
The modified Ranking Scale (mRS) is a commonly used
scale for measuring the degree of disability or dependence
in the daily activities of people who have suffered a stroke
or other casues of neurological disability (here it is post
head injury). The scale runs from 0-6, running from perfect
health without symptoms to death.
Category 4 – Moderately severe disability. Unable to
attend to own bodily needs without assistance, and unable
to walk unassisted.
Petitioner is unable to attend to own bodily needs
without assistance and unable to walk unassisted due to
head injury hence falls in Category 4.
mRS % PPI
Score
0 Nil
1 Less than
SCCH-21 16 MVC No.149/2023
40%
2 40-50%
3 51-60%
4 61-80%
5 More than
80%
Hence, in mixed cases the final permanent PPI due to
neurological problem is arrived using the
telescopic/combines formula.
(DGHS TELESCOPIC SUM FORMULA)
= a + b (90-a) where a- higher value, b- lower
90
A=61%, b=37%.
So permanent neurological disability = 61+37 (90-61)/90
= 61+37 (29)/90
=61+11.92%
=72.92%
=73%.
He has a permanent Neurological disability of 73%.
As per the evidence of doctor, the petitioner has suffered
73% of permanent neurological disability. Petitioner also
examined Assistant Manager of Aster CMI Hospital as PW.1 who has
produced only medical documents and his evidence is formal in
nature.
SCCH-21 17 MVC No.149/2023
As per the Wound Certificate it reveals that, injuries
sustained by the petitioner is grievous in nature. Further, as per the
Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.6 i.e., Clinical notes and neuro-psycological
assessment reports, it is stated by the PW.2 i.e., Nero-surgeon as
well as Dr. Prathibha Sharan, along with IP Records, it goes to show
that, petitioner has suffered total permanent neurological disability
of 73%. The doctor who has given evidence before the Court, that
upon assessing the mental ability of the petitioner, petitioner has
become dull, suffered memory loss, difficultly in conversation and
needs support of others for daily routine works. Though learned
counsel for insurance company cross examined the PW.2 at length
but nothing has been culled out from the mouth of the PW.2 in
support of his version.
As per the evidence of PW.3 who is wife of petitioner, goes to
show that, petitioner cannot get up or walk without the support of
others. Now the petitioner is not able to talk fluently, he has lost
partial memory, cannot understand the conversation and is not able
to do day-to-day activities without the help of others. At the time of
accident respondent was working as Sales-Manager at Alpha Poly
Products at Bangalore. So, the permanent neurological disability of
73% will certainly impairs his daily routine activities and he will not
SCCH-21 18 MVC No.149/2023
in a position to do any work, the disability will certainly cripple him
and there will be loss of earning capacity.
Be that as it may, the law is well settled that it is the impact
of the physical disability on the particular avocation of the petitioner
which is relevant for the purpose of assessment of compensation
under the head of loss of future income as held by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Rajkumar’s case reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343. From
the petition averments as well as evidence it could be culled out
that petitioner was working as Manager and the said work involves
lot of physical work. When such is the case with the injuries
sustained by the petitioner he cannot do his work effectively, as
such his efficiency in work will decrease and it indirectly affect his
income. Considering the nature of injuries, line of treatment and on
appreciation of the clinical findings noted by the doctors, the
possibility of the fact that the petitioner may be having economical
or functional disability to the extent of 50%, cannot be ruled out.
Therefore, this Tribunal consider the functional disability of the
petitioner at 50%. As already discussed above the petitioner has
proved that the accident took place due to the actionable
negligence of the rider of the offending vehicle.
SCCH-21 19 MVC No.149/2023
Before proceeding on merits of the claim, the age of the
petitioner/injured has to be determined. Ex.P.17 is the Aadhar Card
of the petitioner, wherein his DOB is mentioned as 20.04.1971 and
accident took place in the year 2022. Accordingly, I assess his age
as 51 years at the time of this accident. Since, the petitioner has
suffered 50% of functional disability, future prospectus in life has
become bleak. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for certain
percentage of income towards loss of future prospectus in life, as
per the Judgment of Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka between New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Abdul
and others in MFA No. 10380/2016. So 10% of future
prospects is taken into consideration. Taking into consideration of
the same, if 10% is added to the income of the deceased it would
be Rs.47,000/- + 10% of Rs.47,000/- is Rs.4,700/- = Rs.51,700/-
per month. Hence, the income of the petitioner is considered as
Rs.51,700/- per month.
22. As per the ruling reported in AIR 2009 SCW page-
3014 between SARLA VERAMA AND OTHERS VS DELHI
TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS, the relevant
multiplier applicable is ’11’. Hence Rs.51,700 X 12 X 11 X 50%
SCCH-21 20 MVC No.149/2023
= 34,12,200/-. Under this head the petitioner is entitled for
an amount of Rs.34,12,200/-.
23. FOOD, CONVEYANCE, NOURISHMENT AND
ATTENDANT CHARGES:
Further the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and took
treatment as inpatient in Aster CMI Hospital, Bangalore as inpatient
for about 20 days. Hence, he is entitled for compensation of
Rs.50,000/- under the head of nutritious food and attendant
charges.
24. LOSS OF FUTURE AMENITIES AND HAPPINESS: The
petitioner was aged about 51 years at the time of accident, he has
sustained grievous injuries. It shows that he found difficulty in
doing day to day works. He might have suffered lot of pain and loss
of amenities and comforts in life. Therefore, considering the age,
nature of injuries and percentage of disability, Rs.50,000/- is
awarded under the head of loss of future amenities and
happiness.
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation under
the following heads:
1 Pain and sufferings Rs. 75,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs. 8,06,139/-
SCCH-21 21 MVC No.149/2023
3 Loss of earnings during laid Rs. 94,000/-
up period
4 Loss of future earning, Rs. 34,12,200/-
Disability
5 Nutritious food and Rs. 50,000/-
attendant charges
6 Loss of future amenities and Rs. 50,000/-
loss of happiness.
Total Rs. 44,87,339/-
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of
Rs.44,87,339/- under various heads.
25. LIABILITY: Learned counsel for Insurance Company
argued that, at the time of accident in question the driver of
offending vehicle had no valid license to drive the motorcycle and
he was holding only Learner’s license. As such, insurance company
is not liable to pay the compensation. In support of his arguments,
learned counsel for Insurance Company relied upon the Judgment
reported in 2024 ACJ 981 wherein Hon’ble High Court of
Madras, Madurai branch held that, as per the Section 2(19) of M.
V. Act along with Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicles Act, a person with
Learner’s License is acquainted with driving the vehicle only for the
purpose of learning and while so learning, the holder of the license
must be accompanied by instructor to drive such a vehicle.
SCCH-21 22 MVC No.149/2023
Per contra, learned counsel for petitioner argued that, in
view of the various decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka as
well as Hon’ble Apex Court held that, Learner’s License is also valid
license, it cannot be considered as no license. In support of her say
she relied upon the following decision,
1. 2020 ACJ 1: Senior Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Jyotiba Appaji
Shigate and others., wherein at para No.28 Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka observed that, Learner’s License is also
a valid license, the rider or the learner need not to be
accompanied by any instructor for two-wheeler as required
by four-wheeler vehicle which requires instructor.
2. 2019 ACJ 278 : Shantawwa Vs. Ajitsingh and
another, wherein Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka by
relying upon its previous decisions reported in ACJ 430
between Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Felix Correa,
observed that, if a person who is driving motorcycle under
the Learner’s License can be said to be duly licensed or
holding a valid license.
3. 2018 ACJ 1238 : Hussain Peera Vs. G. Parvathi
and another., wherein Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
held that, Insurance Company is liable when vehicle is
driven by a person holding Learner’s License.
4. 2017 ACJ 1050 : Pushpavathamma Vs. Iffco-
Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., and others, wherein
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that, Insurance
Company is liable when vehicle is driven by a person
SCCH-21 23 MVC No.149/2023
holding Learner’s License.
5. 2006 ACJ 2825 : Mahamooda and others Vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and others, wherein
Hon’ble Apex Court held that, even when the offending
vehicle was driven by a person holding the Learner’s
License, the Insurer’s liability exists.
6. 2004 ACJ 1 : National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs.
Swaran Singh and others, wherein at para No. 102(viii)
held that, if the vehicle at the time of accident was driven
by a person having Learner’s License the Insurance
Company would be liable to satisfy the Decree.
Upon hearing the arguments of both counsels in respect of
above issue and in the light of above Judgment once again this
Tribunal perused the documents available on record.
In this case, admittedly rider of offending vehicle was
holding Learner’s License. Though learned counsel for petitioner
contended that, if a person is having Learner’s License, he should
take an instructor along with him/her by relying upon the above
Judgment reported in 2024 ACJ 981. However, the above
Judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka as well as Hon’ble
Apex Court relied by the petitioners clearly held that, the rider of
motorcycle need not required to be accompanied by any instructor
for motorcycle. As on the date of accident policy was in-force.
SCCH-21 24 MVC No.149/2023
Hence, in view of above discussion, the respondent No.1 and 2 are
jointly severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
The respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle is
liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, respondent
No.2 being the insurer is liable to indemnify the respondent No.1
owner.
26. INTEREST: As far as awarding of interest on the
compensation amount is concerned, I have relied on a decision
reported in M.F.A. No.100090 of 2014 in between Vijay
Ishwar Jadhav and others V/s The Divisional Manager, Bajaj
Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd, wherein the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka has awarded interest at the rate of 6%. By
relying on the aforesaid decision, 6% interest awarded to the
petitioners in the present case on hand. Accordingly, issue No.3
is answered partly in the affirmative.
27. ISSUE No.4: In view of above discussions, I proceed
to pass the following:
:ORDER:
The petition filed by the Petitioner under Sec.166 of
I.M.V Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
SCCH-21 25 MVC No.149/2023
The petitioner is awarded with compensation of
Rs.44,87,339/- with interest @ 6% p.a., from the
date of petition till its realization.
The respondent No.2 being insurer of the vehicle
involved in an accident is liable to pay the compensation
to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit
the above compensation amount with interest thereon
before Tribunal within two months from the date of this
award.
In the event of deposit of total compensation
amount of petitioner, 50% of amount shall be released in
his favour along with interest thereon.
Remaining 50% of compensation amount of
petitioner in total compensation amount including
interest thereon shall be deposited in his name as F.D. in
any of the Nationalized or Scheduled Bank as per choice
of petitioner for a period of three years.
After deposit of compensation amount with interest
thereon, disburse amount as mentioned above as per
guidelines laid down by Hon’ble High Court in MFA No.
2509/2019 (ECA) and as per General Circular No.2/2019
dated:19.08.2019.
The petitioner is hereby directed to produce
particulars of his Bank Account, with name of Bank, IFSC
Code, Account Number with copy of First Page of Bank
Pass Book which contains compulsorily photograph of
petitioner, which is duly attested by concerned Bank.
Further petitioner shall produce PAN Card/Aadhar Card.
SCCH-21 26 MVC No.149/2023
In case of deposit of awarded amount, the
petitioner is entitled to receive amount as mentioned
above after expiry of period provided for filing an appeal.
Bank shall not advance loan on such FD, and shall
not cause premature release of FD without permission by
the Tribunal.
Bank shall release amount along with interest
thereon in favour of petitioner after expiry of two years
period of deposit on proper verification and identification,
without waiting for further order of court.
The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
[Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and then corrected by
me and pronounced in the open court on this the 18th Day of June – 2025)(VIJAYKUMAR S. HIREMATH)
XVII ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small
Causes & Member, M.A.C.T., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PETITIONER:
PW-1 : Manju Bhargavi M. G
PW-2 : Dr. Veeresha U Mathad
PW-3 : Sunanda
PW-4 : K. Vairamuthu
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PETITIONER:
Ex.P-1 : Authorization Letter SCCH-21 27 MVC No.149/2023 Ex.P-2 : Inpatient Records Ex.P-3 : Clinical notes Ex.P-4 : OPD follow-up records Ex.P-5 : Authorization Letter Ex.P-6 : Neuro psychological assessment report with work-sheet Ex.P-7 : MRI brain report Ex.P-8 : MRI Scan Films Ex.P-9 : FIR Ex.P-10 : Complaint Ex.P-11 : Spot Mahazar Ex.P-12 : IMV Report Ex.P-13 : Wound Certificate Ex.P-14 : Notice u/s 133 of M. V. Act Ex.P-15 : Charge-Sheet Ex.P-16 : Discharge summary card Ex.P-17 : Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner Ex.P-18 : Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of deponent Ex.P-19 : Driving License Ex.P-20 : Termination letter Ex.P-21 : Bank statement Ex.P-22 : Bills Ex.P-23 : Authorization Letter Ex.P-24 : Notarized copy of Identity card Ex.P-25 : Appointment Letter Ex.P-26 : Salary Certificate Ex.P-27 : Re-leaving Letter WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENTS: RW.1 : Umashankar RW.2 : Venugopal DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR RESPONDENTS: Ex.R-1 : Authorization Letter Ex.R-2 : Copy of Policy Ex.R-3 : Office copy of Notice issued to R1 Ex.R-4 : Postal Receipt Ex.R-5 : Notice u/s 133 of Cr.P.C Ex.R-6 : Reply Notice Ex.R-7 : LLR SCCH-21 28 MVC No.149/2023 Ex.R-8 : Office copy of notice issued to the Employer of petitioner Ex.R-9 & 10 : Postal Acknowledgments (VIJAYKUMAR S. HIREMATH) XVII ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & Member, M.A.C.T., Bengaluru.
[ad_1]
Source link