Bangalore District Court
Shashidar B vs Kishore H B on 17 June, 2025
KABC020052782024
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU. (SCCH-_25)
-: PRESENT:-
PRESENT: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA. R,
B.A.L, LL.B.,
XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2025
MVC Nos.918/2024 & 1631/2024
PETITIONER/s Sri. Shashidar B.
in MVC No.918/2024: S/o Bettaswamy,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at No.222, Near
Anganawadi
Basappanakatte,
Rajgopal Nagar,
Peenya 2nd Stage,
Bangalore North,
Bangalore - 560 058.
(By Sri. Venkataramu,
Advocate/s)
PETITIONER/s Sri. Chidananda
in MVC No.1631/2024: S/o Ranganath,
Aged about 23 years,
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
R/at, Hoskere Post,
H.Gollarahatti,
Medgeshi Hobli,
Madhugiri Taluk,
Tumkur - 572 132.
(By Sri. Venkataramu,
Advocate/s)
V/S
RESPONDENTS 1. Kishore H.B.
in both the cases: S/o Basavaraju,
Yedur Village, Hongal Post,
Somwarpete Taluk,
Kodagu - 571 236.
(RC owner of the Car bearing
Reg.No.KA-12-MB-7358)
(By Sri. Sanchan Jainandan,
Advocate.)
2. SBI Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.,
Ground & First Floor,
Rukmini Towers 3-1,
Platform Road/Railway
Approach Road,
Seshadripuram,
Bengaluru - 560 020.
(Policy No.194002/N0003321626
Valid from 25.11.2023 to
24.11.2026)
(By Sri. V. Shrihari Naidu,
Advocate.)
SCCH-25 3 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
JUDGMENT
These judgments arises out of claim petitions
filed by the claimants against respondents under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred as “Act”) praying to award
compensation in respect of the injuries sustained
by them in the road traffic accident occurred on
13.01.2024.
2. The case of the claimants in nutshell is
that:
On 13.01.2024 at about 7.30pm, the petitioner
in MVC 918/2024 were proceeding as a pillion rider
and the petitioner in MVC 1631/2024 was the rider
in a Pulsar motorcycle bearing No.KA-64-V-5211
from Bangalore towards Gollarahatti on the extreme
left side on Urdigere-Dabaspete Road slowly and
cautiously, by observing the traffic rules and
regulations. While so proceeding reached at
Bellibatlahalli & Bevinahalli Center, Urdigere,
Tumkur, suddenly the driver of the Car bearing
Reg.No.KA-12-MB-7358 came from opposite direction
in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to
human life, came to extreme right i.e., wrong side of
the petitioners and dashed against the Pulsar
SCCH-25 4 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-64-V-5211 and caused
the accident. Consequent to which, the petitioners fell
down and sustained grievous injuries.
3. It is the case of the petitioner in MVC
No.918/2024 that:
Immediately the petitioner was shifted to
Tumkur District Hospital, wherein provided first aid
treatment, due to severe injuries sustained by him,
referred to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore, wherein he
took treatment as an inpatient from 14.01.2024 to
26.01.2024, underwent surgery i.e., wound
debridement + Biplanar Knee spanning ex-fix under
SASB and after necessary treatment discharged with
an advice. So far he has spent Rs.60,000/- towards
medical, conveyance, nourishment and other
incidental expenses. On account of the said
accidental injuries petitioner was completely bed
ridden, he could not attend his work, undergoing
deep mental shock since, the injuries caused are
permanent in nature.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that,
prior to the date of accident he was hale and healthy,
working as Outside Fitting Tables at Trinity
SCCH-25 5 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
Technologies and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per
month. Due to accidental injuries he could not
attend his work, resulted in loss of earnings, earning
capacity and put to great financial hardship.
5. It is the case of the petitioner in MVC
No.1631/2024 that:
Immediately the petitioner was shifted to
Government Hospital, Udigere wherein provided first
aid treatment and thereafter shifted to Tumkur
District Hospital, due to severe injuries sustained by
him, the petitioner was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi
Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedic Hospital,
Bengaluru wherein he took treatment as an inpatient
from 14.01.2024 to 19.02.2024, underwent many
surgeries and plates and a screws were inserted, after
necessary treatment discharged with an advice for
follow up treatment. So far he has spent
Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical, conveyance,
nourishment and other incidental expenses. On
account of the said accidental injuries petitioner was
completely bed ridden, he could not attend his work,
undergoing deep mental shock since, the injuries
caused are permanent in nature.
SCCH-25 6 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
6. It is the further case of the petitioner that,
prior to the date of accident he was hale and healthy,
working as AIRO Space Assembly Work at Trinity
Technologies and earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per
month. Due to accidental injuries he could not
attend his work, resulted in loss of earnings, earning
capacity and put to great financial hardship.
7. The accident has taken place due to the
rash and negligent manner of driving by the driver of
the offending Car bearing No.KA-12-MB-7358. The
Kyathasandra Police have registered a case in their
Cr.No.22/2024 and filed charge sheet against the
said driver p/u/Secs 279 & 338 of IPC. The
respondent No.1 being the RC owner and the
Respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending
Car bearing No.KA-12-MB-7358 are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation to the
petitioners in both the cases. Hence, in both the
cases, petitioners prays for award for the total
compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- & Rs.20,00,000/-
respectively.
8. In pursuance of notices, the respondents
have appeared through their respective counsels and
SCCH-25 7 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
filed separate written statements in both the cases.
9. The 1st respondent in the written
statement has denied the entire averments except
admitting the ownership of the vehicle bearing
Reg.No.KA-12-MB-7358. Further admitted that the
said vehicle was duly insured with the respondent
No.2 for the period from 25.11.2023 to 24.11.2026.
Further he has denied the manner of accident and
involvement of the Car in the accident. He has denied
the rashness of the driver of the Car. Further denied
the accidental injuries to the petitioner, age, income,
medical expenses etc., Further contended that the
compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly
excessive and exorbitant.
10. That the respondent No.2 in the written
statement has denied the entire petition averments
except admitting the issuance of policy in respect of
the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-12-MB-7358 and in
favour of Respondent No.1. it has denied the
involvement of the vehicle in the accident. Further
contended that there is a non joinder of necessary
parties to the petition. The respondent No.1 did not
possessed the valid and effective RC, FC and permit,
SCCH-25 8 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
Tax etc., to drove the Car as on the date of accident.
There is a non compliance of Sec.158(6) and 134(c) of
MV Act. Further it has denied the manner of
accident. It has also denied the age, income,
avocation, medical expenses of the petitioners.
Further contended that the compensation claimed by
the petitioners is excessive and exorbitant. Therefore,
prayed for dismiss the petition against it.
11. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the
following issues are framed for determination.
(Issues in MVC No.918/2024)
Issue No.1: Whether the petitioners
proves that, the accident occurred
on 13.01.2024 at 7.30pm due to
rash and negligent driving of driver
of Car bearing Reg.No.KA-12-MB-
7358 and in the said accident
petitioner sustained injuries?
Issue No.2: Whether the petitioner
is entitled for compensation? If so,
what is the quantum? Form whom?
Issue No.3: What order or Award?
(Issues in MVC No.1631/2024)
Issue No.1: Whether the petitioners
proves that, the accident occurred
SCCH-25 9 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
on 13.01.2024 at 7.30pm due to
rash and negligent driving of driver
of Car bearing Reg.No.KA-12-MB-
7358 and in the said accident
petitioner sustained injuries?
Issue No.2: Whether the petitioner
is entitled for compensation? If so,
what is the quantum? Form whom?
Issue No.3: What order or Award?
12. In order to substantiate the claim petition
contention, the petitioners of both cases have
examined themselves as PW.1 and 4 and got marked
Ex.P.1 to P16 and Ex.P.24 to P.34. The petitioners
also got examined the Medical Record Officers of
Tumakuru District Hospital, Tumakuru and Victoria
Hospital, KR Road, Bengaluru as Pws.2 & 3 and got
marked Exs.P.17 to 23.
Dr. B. Ramesh – Orthopaedic Surgeon at
Victoria Hospital, Bangalrore got examined (in MVC
918/2024) as PW.5 and got marked Exs.P.35 to P.36.
Dr. Chidanand K.J.C. – Orthopedic Surgeon and
Asso. Professor orthopedics at Sanjay Gandhi
Institute of Trauma and Orthopedics got examined (in
MVC 1631/2024) as PW.6 and got marked Exs.P.37
& P.38. The legal officer of the respondent No.2 has
got examined (in both the cases) himself as RW.1, got
SCCH-25 10 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
marked Ex.R1. Ex.P39 has got marked during cross
examination of RW.1.
13. I have heard the arguments canvassed by
the learned counsel for the parties.
The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
following decisions:
1. MFA No.202001/2018 : dated 11.08.20231
2. ILR 2017 KAR 12922
3. 2005 ACJ 644 :3
4. 2011 ACJ 1 :4
5. MFA NO.4237/2015:dated 24.09.20215
6. AIR 2011 SC 12266
14. On perusal of oral and documentary
evidence led by the parties before this tribunal, my
answers to the above issues (in both cases) are as
follows:
Issue No.1: In the affirmative
Issue No.2: Partly in affirmative
Issue No.3: As per final order for the
foregoing:
1
Mallanna VS Mahadevappa and another.
2
KSRTC Vs Bellappa
3
M.V.Chowadappa Vs Mohan Breweries & Distilleries Ltd and another
4
Rajkumar Vs Ajay kumar and another.
5
Ranjitha Vs Reliance Gen. Ins.Co.Ltd.
6
Ravi VS Badrinarayan and others.
SCCH-25 11 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
#REASONS#
15. Issue No.1 in both the cases: In order to
substantiate the claim petition contention, the
petitioners of both cases have examined themselves
as PW.1 and 4. the petitioner of the MVC
No.918/2024 has got examined Medical Record
Officers as Pws.2 & 3 and got marked Exs.P.17 to
P.23. The petitioner has also got examined Doctors
as Pws.5 & 6. Exs.P1 to 16 were marked through
PW.1. The PW.4 has got marked Ex.P24 to 34.
Exs.P35 to 38 were marked through Pws.5 & 6. The
legal officer of the respondent No.2 has examined
himself as RW.1, got marked Ex.R1. Ex.P39 has got
marked during cross examination of RW.1. The
details of the exhibits are given in the annexure of
the judgment.
16. The chief examination of the PW.1 and 4
are nothing but a repetition of plaint averments.
These witnesses have been subjected to cross
examination. The relevant portion of the PW.1 is
herewith reproduced:
The PW.1 has deposed that: it is true to suggest
that we were triple riding in the bike. I saw the
SCCH-25 12 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024offending vehicle from very near distance. We parked
the bike to attend nature’s call and the tamily boy
was getting down when the offending vehicle hit us. I
do not know who gave vehicle number to the police.
It is true that front portion of the bike is completely
damaged. It is false to suggest that it was a head on
collision. It is true that there were no signals or
humps on the accident spot. It is true to suggest that
vehicles from cross road also join the main state
highway. I know the contents of the charge sheet. I
do not know that the charge sheet is filed against
PW.4 also not having DL and insurance and for triple
riding”
17. The PW.4 has denied the material
suggestions in the cross examination.
18. The official of the insurer company has
reiterated the defense set out in the written
statement in his chief examination. He has been
subjected to cross examination. He has admitted that
the claim petition filed by Suryavelu has settled in
Lok adalth. The RW.1 further denied all other
material suggestions of the petitioner counsel.
SCCH-25 13 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
19. It is undisputed fact that the there was a
delay in lodging the case. The First information
report indicates that, the informant had not lodged
the complaint in time as he was busy in taking care
of the injured persons in the hospital. At this
juncture, it is beneficial to refer the Judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RAVI V/s.
BADRINARAYAN AND OTHERS. The Hon’ble Apex
Court has observed that
“in accident cases, 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 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
cannot be dismissed merely on that ground
although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding
motor accident claim cases. Delay in lodging
SCCH-25 14 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
the claim 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. In such cases, the
authenticity of the FIR assumes much more
significance than delay in lodging thereof.”
20. In the light of the Judgment referred to supra
in RAVI’s case, it is manifestly clear delay in lodging
the FIR cannot be the ground to deny justice to the
victim. However, the claim has to be examined with
a closer scrutiny, particularly the contents of the FIR.
The First Information report indicates that, the
informant had not lodged the complaint as he was
busy in taking care of the injured person in the
hospital. So, the informant has shown the reason for
lodging the complaint with delay. Same has been
highlighted in the relevant column of FIR. So, the
reasons assigned by the informant is satisfactory and
cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of
reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR.
In such cases, the authenticity of the FIR assumes
much more significance than delay in lodging thereof.
It is well settled position of law that the proceedings
under Motor Vehicle Act are summary in nature and
SCCH-25 15 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
it is beneficial legislation and the evidence required
about negligence act is sufficient if it is in the nature
of preponderance of probability.
21. The petitioners have totally relied on the police
documents to establish the negligence on the part of
the offending vehicle’s driver. It is no doubt the police
have submitted the charge sheet against the driver of
the offending Car after thorough investigation. The
sketch appended to spot mahazar indicates that the
driver of the offending vehicle was almost on right
side of the road. It is undisputed fact that the police
have submitted that charge sheet against the
petitioner of MVC No.1631-2024 for the offense
punishable under section 181. 196 and 194 of Motor
Vehicle Act. It is further undisputed fact that the
petitioners along with one Suryavelu were proceeding
in the bike. The oral evidence of the petitioner have
coupled with documentary evidence. The insurance
company has denied the manner of accident and
also contended that the rider of the motorcycle has
also contributed to the accident. But the material on
record are clearly depicts that the petitioners were on
the left side of their path and the offending vehicle
was on right side of the road. So, the arguments does
SCCH-25 16 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
not holds any kind of water. The material on records
are clearly indicates that the accident has occurred
sole negligence on the offending vehicle’s driver.
22. As I referred above, the petitioners and
another persons were proceeding in one bike or in
other words the rider of the motor bike has
accompanied by two pillion riders. It is the
contention of the insurer that triple riding is an
offense and the rider of the bike has also contributed
equally for the accident. It is undisputed fact that, in
bike the rider and deceased and another persons
were traveling. The entire materials on records does
not discloses that such violation was the cause for
the accident to attribute contributory negligence on
the part of rider of the bike. In this regard I would
like to rely on dictum of Our Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in a decision reported in 72017 ACJ 1758.
The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has held in
paragraph No. 8 that,
“8. A careful perusal of the se
judgment makes it clear that the very
violation of a statutory provision would
not lead to negligence causing the
7
Bharma Kallappa Murashetti and others Vs Karamjeet Kaur and another
SCCH-25 17 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
accident. A concrete evidence causing is
necessary to establish the violation of the
statutory provision, resulting in
negligence causing the accident. Only in
such circumstances, proportionate
contributory negligence could be
attributable. No doubt three person were
traveling on a motor cycle in violation of
section 128 of the Act, but no evidence is
led by the insurer to establish that the
said violation of the statutory provision
itself was the cause for the accident to
attribute contributory negligence on the
part of the deceased. Merer taking a
defense in the written statement would
not suffice to establish the factum of
contributory negligence, it has to be
supported by direct and corroborative
evidence, which is admittedly missing in
the present case, since the insurer has not
made any attempt to adduce evidence to
establish contributory negligence on the
part of the deceased. It is well settled
principle that for the insurer to avoid its
liability, the breach of policy must be so
SCCH-25 18 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
fundamental in nature that it brings
contract to an end. The burden of proving
rests on the shoulder of the insurer to
establish breach of the policy, which was
fundamental in nature. That having not
been done by the insure, no contributory
negligence can be attributed on the part of
the deceased. On the other hand, the
police records very well establish that
negligence on the part of the driver of th
truck was the case for the accident. This
vital material evidence was lost sight of by
the tribunal which fixing contributory
negligence to the extent of 50 percent on
the deceased. Thus, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the negligence on
the part of the deceased is not fit to be
sustained. Accordingly, entire negligence
is fixed on the driver of the truck and the
insurer of the offending vehicle-
respondent No.2 shall be liable to satisfy
the award.”
23. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in a
SCCH-25 19 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
decision reported in 8(2020) 3 SCC 57 in paragraph
No.12 that,
12. But the above reason, in our view, is
flawed. The fact that the deceased was
riding on a motorcycle along with the
driver and another, may not, by itself,
without anything more, make him guilty
of contributory negligence. At the most, it
would make him guilty of being a party to
the violation of the law. Section 128 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, imposes a
restriction on the driver of a two-wheeled
motorcycle, not to carry more than one
person on the motorcycle. Section 194-C,
inserted by Amendment Act 32 of 2019,
prescribes a penalty for violation of safety
measures for motorcycle drivers and
pillion riders. Therefore, the fact that a
person was a pillion rider on a motorcycle
along with the driver and one more person
on the pillion, may be a violation of the
law. But such violation by itself, without
anything more, cannot lead to a finding of
contributory negligence, unless it is
8
Mohammed Siddique and another Vs Natinal Insurance Co. Ltd and others
SCCH-25 20 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
established that his very act of riding
along with two others, contributed either
to the accident or to the impact of the
accident upon the victim. There must
either be a causal connection between the
violation and the accident or a causal
connection between the violation and the
impact of the accident upon the victim. It
may so happen at times, that the accident
could have been averted or the injuries
sustained could have been of a lesser
degree, if there had been no violation of
the law by the victim. What could
otherwise have resulted in a simple injury,
might have resulted in a grievous injury or
even death due to the violation of the law
by the victim. It is in such cases, where,
but for the violation of the law, either the
accident could have been averted or the
impact could have been minimized, that
the principle of contributory negligence
could be invoked. It is not the case of the
insurer that the accident itself occurred
as a result of three persons riding on a
motorcycle. It is not even the case of the
SCCH-25 21 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
insurer that the accident would have been
averted, if three persons were not riding
on the motorcycle. The fact that the
motorcycle was hit by the car from
behind, is admitted. Interestingly, the
finding recorded by the Tribunal that the
deceased was wearing a helmet and that
the deceased was knocked down after the
car hit the motorcycle from behind, are all
not assailed. Therefore, the finding of the
High Court that 2 persons on the pillion of
the motorcycle, could have added to the
imbalance, is nothing but presumptuous
and is not based either upon pleading or
upon the evidence on record. Nothing was
extracted from PW 3 to the effect that 2
persons on the pillion added to the
imbalance.”
24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in a
decision 92018 (5) SCC 656 held
“24. It will be useful to advert to the
dictum in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M.
Karumai Ammal [N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M.
9
Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
SCCH-25 22 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
Karumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980
SCC (Cri) 774] , wherein it was contended
by the vehicle owner that the criminal
case in relation to the accident had ended
in acquittal and for which reason the
claim under the Motor Vehicles Act ought
to be rejected. This Court negatived the
said argument by observing that the
nature of proof required to establish
culpable rashness, punishable under IPC,
is more stringent than negligence
sufficient under the law of tort to create
liability. The observation made in para 3
of the judgment would throw some light as
to what should be the approach of the
Tribunal in motor accident cases. The
same reads thus :
“3. Road accidents are one of the top
killers in our country, specially when
truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally.
This proverbial recklessness often
persuades the courts, as has been
observed by us earlier in other cases, to
draw an initial presumption in several
cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa
SCCH-25 23 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take
special care to see that innocent victims
do not suffer and drivers and owners do
not escape liability merely because of
some doubt here or some obscurity there.
Save in plain cases, culpability must be
inferred from the circumstances where it
is fairly reasonable. The court should not
succumb to niceties, technicalities and
mystic maybes. We are emphasising this
aspect because we are often distressed by
transport operators getting away with it
thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact
that they do not exercise sufficient
disciplinary control over the drivers in the
matter of careful driving. The heavy
economic impact of culpable driving of
public transport must bring owner and
driver to their responsibility to their
neighbor. Indeed, the State must seriously
consider no-fault liability by legislation. A
second aspect which pains us is the
inadequacy of the compensation or undue
parsimony practiced by tribunals. We
must remember that judicial tribunals are
SCCH-25 24 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024State organs and Article 41 of the
Constitution lays the jurisprudential
foundation for State relief against
accidental disablement of citizens. There
is no justification for niggardliness in
compensation. A third factor which is
harrowing is the enormous delay in
disposal of accident cases resulting in
compensation, even if awarded, being
postponed by several years. The States
must appoint sufficient number of
tribunals and the High Courts should
insist upon quick disposals so that the
trauma and tragedy already sustained may
not be magnified by the injustice of
delayed justice. Many States are unjustly
indifferent in this regard.”
25. In Dulcina Fernandes [Dulcina
Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013)
10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 :
(2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] , this Court
examined similar situation where the
evidence of claimant’s eyewitness was
discarded by the Tribunal and that the
respondent in that case was acquitted in
SCCH-25 25 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024the criminal case concerning the accident.
This Court, however, opined that it cannot
be overlooked that upon investigation of
the case registered against the
respondent, prima facie, materials
showing negligence were found to put him
on trial. The Court restated the settled
principle that the evidence of the
claimants ought to be examined by the
Tribunal on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability and certainly
the standard of proof beyond reasonable
doubt could not have been applied”
The Court cannot adopt strict liability as conducted
in a criminal case to prove rash and negligence on
the part of the driver of the respondent vehicle. But
there should be prima-facie materials regarding rash
and negligence to fix the owner and insurance
company for payment of compensation. Therefore, a
straight jacket formula cannot be adopted in
accepting the rash and negligence on the part of
driver of the insured vehicle. The materials on
records are clearly indicates that the accident was
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
respondent No.1. So, I answered issue No.1 in both
SCCH-25 26 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024the cases in the affirmative
25. Issue No.2 in MVC 918/2024:
The petitioner of MVC No.918/2024 has
produced the wound certificate and discharge
summaries from the concerned hospital. The wound
certificate (Ex.P4) discloses that, the petitioner has
sustained (i) Fracture of right knee, communited
fracture of distal femur, (ii) Multiple abrassions over
right knee. Out of these injuries, injury No.1 is
grievous in nature and injury No.2 is simple in
nature. The medical officer has expressed his opinion
on the basis of the OPD Record and X-ray that the
injury were grievous in nature. In this regard, the
petitioner has examined one Dr. B. Ramesh as P.W.5.
The PW.5 has stated in the chief examination
affidavit paragraph Nos.2 and 3 that “upon clinical
examination it is found that the right open type 3B
distal femur fracture. The Rediological examintion
shows mal united with implants in situ. Arthritis
chamfer in knee is found”. The patient underwent
internal fixation of femur and tibia and discharged on
11.04.2024 and readmitted on 22.05.2024. PTRA
right lower limb underwent flap cover and discahrged
on 25.04.2024. The PW.5 has opined that the
petitioner has permanent physical disability of 74% of
SCCH-25 27 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
right lower limb which is 37% of whole body.
The PW.5 has been subjected to cross examination.
Nothing has been elicited in the entire cross
examination.
26. Before discussing on this point, it is
necessary to advert to the observations made by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in 10
Raj Kumar vs. Ajay
Kumar. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that,
“the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 makes it clear that the award must
be just, which means that compensation
should, to the extent possible, fully and
adequately restore the claimant to the
position prior to the accident. The object
of awarding damages is to make good the
loss suffered as a result of wrong done as
far as money can do so, in a fair,
reasonable and equitable manner. The
Court or Tribunal shall have to assess the
damages objectively and exclude from
consideration any speculation or fancy,
though some conjecture with reference to
the nature of disability and its
2011 ACJ 1
10
SCCH-25 28 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
consequences, is inevitable. A person is
not only to be compensated for the
physical injury, but also for the loss
which he suffered as a result of such
injury. This means that he is to be
compensated for his inability to lead a
full life, his inability to enjoy those
normal amenities which he would have
enjoyed but for the injuries, and his
inability to earn as much as he used to
earn or could have earned”.
27. Our Hon’ble High Court has held in a
case MFA.811 OF 2015 (MV-I) decided on 18 July,
2019 in between Rajanna @ Raju and another V/s
Srinivas and another that
“It is necessary to understand the meaning
of the expression “permanent disability”,
which has been elucidated in Rajkumar.
According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
disability refers to any restriction or lack of
ability to perform an activity in the manner
considered normal for a human being.
Permanent disability refers to the residuary
incapacity or loss of use of some part of the
SCCH-25 29 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
body, found existing at the end of the period
of treatment and recuperation, after
achieving the maximum bodily improvement
or recovery which is likely to remain for the
remainder life of the injured. Temporary
disability refers to the incapacity or loss of
use of some part of the body on account of
the injury, which will cease to exist at the
end of the period of treatment and
recuperation. Permanent disability can be
either partial or total. Partial permanent
disability refers to a person’s inability to
perform all the duties and bodily functions
that he could perform before the accident,
though he is able to perform some of them
and is still able to engage in some gainful
activity. Total permanent disability refers to a
person’s inability to perform any avocation or
employment related activities as a result of
the accident. The permanent disabilities that
may arise from motor accidents injuries, are
of a much wider range when compared to the
physical disabilities which are enumerated in
the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
SCCH-25 30 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
Participation) Act, 1995 (“the Disabilities
Act”, for short). But if any of the disabilities
enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Disabilities
Act are the result of injuries sustained in a
motor accident, they can be permanent
disabilities for the purpose of claiming
compensation.
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide
whether there is any permanent disability
and, if so, the extent of such permanent
disability. This means that the Tribunal
should consider and decide with reference to
the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement
is permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is
permanent, whether it is permanent total
disablement or permanent partial
disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is
expressed with reference to any specific limb,
then the effect of such disablement of the
limb on the functioning of the entire body,
that is, the permanent disability suffered by
the person.”
28. By considering the dictums of Hon’ble
Supreme Court and Our Hon’ble High Court and also
SCCH-25 31 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
evidence led by the medical officer, It is appears to
Court that, the petitioner has sustained grievous and
simple injuries. And it certainly affected on
functioning over the right leg knee. The medical
officer has given physical disability of 37 Points for
whole body. The petition discloses that the petitioner
was doing fitting tables. The evidence of the medical
officer clearly clinches that on clinical examination,
the medical officer has pointed out the difficulities of
the injured person to do routine work and also squat
on floor, climb upstairs. It means, the petitioner is
not in position to do the earlier work. As such, the
petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability
of 25% whole body. Therefore, the claimant is
entitled for the compensation under the following
heads.
PECUNIARY DAMAGES
I. Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization,
medicines, transportation, nourishing food and
misc. expenditures.
29. The claimant has contended that he has
taken treatment at Tumkur District Hospital and
Victoria Hospital, Bangalore. The documents placed
by the petitioner indicates that he has taken
treatment before the said hospitals. The Petitioner
SCCH-25 32 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
has taken treatment at Victoria Hospital, Bangalore
from 14.01.2024 to 26.01.2024. Further the
Discharge Summary of petitioner produced by the
PW.1 indicates that, the petitioner was admitted on
14.01.2024 to 26.01.2024, 11.03.2024 to
13.03.2024, 01.04.2024 to 11.04.2024, 01.04.2024
to 19.04.2024 and from 22.05.2024 to 25.04.2024 at
Victoria Hospital, Bangalore. On careful perusal of
the medical bills, it is appears to Court that there is
no repetitive bills, advance bills. Hence, I award a
sum of Rs.4,990/- as compensation to the
claimant under the head of treatment and medical
expenses. As supra said, the petitioner has admitted
in the said Hospitals as inpatient for a period of
nearly 38 days. Hence, it is just and proper to award
a sum of Rs.250/-per day for attendant and Rs.250/-
for food and nourishment charges, which would
comes Rs.19,000/-. A sum of Rs.19,000/- is
awarded under the head of attendant, food and
nourishment charges.
(ii) LOSS OF EARNING
30. The claimant has contended that, he was
working as Outside fitting Tables and was earning of
Rs.15,000/- per month. In this regard, the petitioner
has not placed any kind of document. He has failed
SCCH-25 33 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
to prove his exact income. So, considering the nature
of work notional income of Rs.16,500/- P.M. is
calculated to award loss of earning, it would meets
the ends of justice. Therefore, I award Rs.20,900/-
to the claimant under the head of loss of earning
during the treatment.
(b) LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING ON ACCOUNT OF
PERMANENT DISABILITY:
31. The claimant has examined the Doctor to
substantiate the disability as PW-5. As already
discussed above, the petitioner was suffered disability
of 37%. The PW.5 has opined that the petitioner has
disability of 25% Points for functional loss of
malocclusion. As per the petition averments, the age
of the claimant is 22 years. But, the Aadhar Card
marked at EX.P10 clearly discloses that, the age of
the petitioner was 21 years. Therefore, the age of the
claimant is considered as 21 years to assess the loss
of future earning and the multiplier is 18. As I have
already stated the notional income of the claimant is
Rs.16,500/-PM, The loss of future earning is
calculated as Rs.16,500/- (Monthly income X 12
(Months) X 18 X 25%/100 = Rs.8,91,000/- which is
the just and proper compensation payable to
SCCH-25 34 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
claimant. Even if any amount were to be granted
under head, the petitioner will not be entitled for
interest on this amount, in view of the decision in ILR
2000 Kar 1954 (Bhaskar @ Bhaskar Devaram Bangad
Vs. R.K.Srinivasan & Another), wherein it is held that
“the ratio in the said case would show that interest
would not be payable in respect of future expenditure
under different heads”.
NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES (GENERAL DAMAGES)
(iii) Damages for pain and suffering and trauma
consequence of the injuries.
32. The claimant has undergone pain and
suffering during the accident and during the
rehabilitation period. Therefore, I award Rs.10,000/-
as compensation to the claimant under the head
of pain and suffering.
33. The claimant in all entitled for just
compensation under the following heads:
Sl. NATURE OF THE COMPENSATION
No. HEADS
01 Medical Expenses Rs.4,990 =00
02 Loss of income during Rs.20,900=00
treatment
03 Attendant, Food & Rs.19,000=00
SCCH-25 35 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
Nourishment charges
04 Pain and Suffering Rs.10,000=00
05 Loss of future earning Rs.8,91,000=00
on account of
disability
TOTAL Rs.9,45,890=00
34. Thus, petitioner of MVC No.918/2024 is
entitled for total compensation of Rs.9,45,890/-.-. As
the petitioner is not entitled for interest on the loss of
future income due to disability, it is relevant to note
that total compensation amount awarded under (5)
supra is Rs.8,91,000/-. Deducting the same from
Rs.9,45,890/-, the amount that would fetch interest
will be Rs.54,890/-. Hence, the petitioner is entitled
for compensation of Rs.9,45,890/- with interest at
6% per annum on Rs.54,890/- from the date of
petition till realization.
35. Issue No.2 in MVC 1631/2024:
The petitioner of MVC No.1631/2024 has
produced the wound certificate at Ex.P25. The wound
certificate discloses that the petitioner has sustained
(I) complete Anelxion of right ankle exposure of joint,
(ii) Crish injury of right foot, bleeding, (iii) Lacerated
SCCH-25 36 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024wound over left knee, (iv) Multiple abrassions over left
leg and (v) Swelling forehead and right hand nad over
3rd and 4th fingers. The has diagnosed with right distal
both bone fracture leg, tibiotalar dislocation, right 1 st
4th and 5th metatarsal fracture and 1st tarsometatarsal
joint dislocation and right hand 3rd and 4th proximal
phalanx fracture. The Doctor opined that out of these
injuries, injury Nos.1, 2 and 5 are grievous in nature
and 3 & 4 are simple in nature. The medical officer
has expressed his opinion on the basis of the case
sheet and X-ray that the injury were grievous in
nature. In this regard, the petitioner has examined
one Dr. Chidanand K.J.C. as P.W.6. The PW.6 has
stated in the chief examination affidavit paragraph
Nos.3 and 4 that “upon clinical examination the
petitioner sustained mobility stability and type 3 C
open right distal both bone leg fracture with tibiotalar
dislocation, right 1st 4th and 5th metatarsal fracture
and 1st tarsometatarsal joint dislocation, underwent
wound debridement and external fixator with rush
nail to disatal fibula and K wire for metatarsal
fracture later ex fix removal and VAC application and
again wound debridement and free flap with SSG and
discharged on 19.02.2024. The PW.6 has opined that
the petitioner has disability for limb is at 56% and to
SCCH-25 37 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024the whole body at 19%.
36. The PW.6 has been subjected to cross
examination. Nothing has been elicited in the entire
cross examination.
37. By considering the above referred
dictums of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Our Hon’ble
High Court and also evidence led by the medical
officer, It is appears to Court that, the petitioner has
sustained grievous and simple injuries. And it
certainly affected on functioning over the left leg and
right hand. The medical officer has given physical
disability of 19% as functional disability. As such,
the petitioner has suffered permanent physical
disability of 15%. Therefore, the claimant is entitled
for the compensation under the following heads.
PECUNIARY DAMAGES
I. Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization,
medicines, transportation, nourishing food and
misc. expenditures.
38. The claimant has contended that she has
taken treatment at Government Hospital, Udigere
later he was shifted to Tumakuru District Hospital
and then at Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and
Orthopaedic Hospital, Bangalore. The documents
SCCH-25 38 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
placed by the petitioner indicates that he has taken
treatment at Sanjay gandhi Hospital as an inpatient
from 14.01.2024 to 19.02.2024. Further the
Discharge summary produced by the petitioner
indicates that, he was admitted on 14.01.2024 to
19.02.2024 at Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma
and Orthopaedics, Bangalore. On careful perusal of
the medical bills, it is appears to Court that there is
no repetitive bills, advance bills. Hence, I award a
sum of Rs.48,250/- as compensation to the
claimant under the head of treatment and medical
expenses. As supra said, the petitioner has admitted
in the said Hospitals as inpatient for a period of
nearly 36 days. Hence, it is just and proper to award
a sum of Rs.250/-per day for attendant and Rs.250/-
for food and nourishment charges, which would
comes Rs.18,000/–. A sum of Rs.18,000/- is
awarded under the head of attendant, food and
nourishment charges.
(ii) LOSS OF EARNING
39. The claimant has contended that, he was
working as AIRO Space Assembly Work at Trinity
Technologies and was earning of Rs.25,000/- per
month. In this regard, the petitioner has not placed
any kind of document. He has failed to prove the
SCCH-25 39 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
exact income of her. So, considering the nature of
work notional income of Rs.16,500/- P.M. is
calculated to award loss of earning, it would meets
the ends of justice. Therefore, I award Rs.19,800/–
to the claimant under the head of loss of earning
during the treatment.
(b) LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING ON ACCOUNT OF
PERMANENT DISABILITY:
40. The claimant has examined the Doctor to
substantiate the disability as PW-6. As already
discussed above, the petitioner was suffered
disability. The PW.6 has opined that the petitioner
has 19% of functional disability. As per the petition
averments, the age of the claimant is 23 years. The
Aadhar Card marked at EX.P26 clearly discloses that,
the age of the petitioner was 23 years. Therefore, the
age of the claimant is considered as 23 years to
assess the loss of future earning and the multiplier is
18. As I have already stated the notional income of
the claimant is Rs.16,500/-PM, The loss of future
earning is calculated as Rs.16,500/- (Monthly income
X 12 (Months) X 18 X 15%/100 = Rs.5,34,600/-
which is the just and proper compensation payable to
claimant. Even if any amount were to be granted
under head, the petitioner will not be entitled for
SCCH-25 40 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
interest on this amount, in view of the decision in ILR
2000 Kar 1954 (Bhaskar @ Bhaskar Devaram Bangad
Vs. R.K.Srinivasan & Another), wherein it is held that
“the ratio in the said case would show that interest
would not be payable in respect of future expenditure
under different heads”.
NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES (GENERAL DAMAGES)
(iii) Damages for pain and suffering and trauma
consequence of the injuries.
41. The claimant has undergone pain and
suffering during the accident and during the
rehabilitation period. Therefore, I award Rs.10,000/-
as compensation to the claimant under the head
of pain and suffering.
42. The claimant in all entitled for just
compensation under the following heads:
Sl. NATURE OF THE COMPENSATION
No. HEADS
01 Medical Expenses Rs.48,250=00
02 Loss of income during Rs.19,800 =00
treatment
03 Attendant, Food & Rs.18,000=00
Nourishment charges
04 Pain and Suffering Rs. 10,000=00
SCCH-25 41 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
05 Loss of future earning Rs.5,34,600=00
on account of
disability
TOTAL Rs.6,30,650=00
43. Thus, petitioner of MVC No.1631/2024 is
entitled for total compensation of Rs.6,30,650/-. As
the petitioner is not entitled for interest on the loss of
future income due to disability, it is relevant to note
that total compensation amount awarded under (5)
supra is Rs.5,34,600/- is deducting the same from
Rs.6,30,650/-, the amount that would fetch interest
will be Rs.96,050/-. Hence, the petitioner is entitled
for compensation of Rs.6,30,650/- with interest at
6% per annum on Rs.96,050/- from the date of
petition till realization.
44. The next question is the liability to pay
the said compensation. As I referred above the
accident was occurred due rash and negligent driving
of the offending Car. It is not the case of the either
respondents that, the insurance was not in force at
the time of accident. The police have submitted the
charge sheet against the petitioner of MVC No.1631-
2024 for the offense punishable under section 181,
196,194C of Motor Vehicle Act. Further the insurer
SCCH-25 42 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
has not produced any iota of evidence to show that
the driver of the offending car driven the car without
holding valid and effective driving license at relevant
point of time. Therefore, Respondent No.1 is
indemnify the respondent No.2 and liable to pay
compensation to the petitioners. Hence, I answer
issue No.2 in both cases partly in affirmative
45. Issue No.3 in both cases:- In view of my
findings to the above points, I proceed to pass the
following:
-: ORDER :-
The claim petitions filed by
claimants under section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are
allowed in part.
The Petitioner of MVC
No.918/2024 is entitled for
compensation of Rs.9,45,890/-
(Rupees Nine Lakhs forty five
thousand eight hundred ninety only)
with interest at 6% per annum on
Rs.54,890/-(Rupees Fifty four
thousand eight hundred ninety only)
from the date of petition till
SCCH-25 43 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024realization.
The petitioner is not entitled
for interest on Rs.8,91,000/-(Rupees
eight lakhs Ninety one thousand
only) which is the compensation
awarded towards future loss of
income due to disability.
The Petitioner of MVC
No.1631/2024 is entitled for
compensation of Rs.06,30,650/-
(Rupees Six lakhs thirty thousand
six hundred and fifty only) with
interest at 6% per annum on
Rs.96,050/-(Rupees Ninety Six
thousand fifty only) from the date of
petition till realization.
The petitioner is not entitled
for interest on Rs.5,34,600/-(Rupees
five Lakhs thirty four thousand Six
hundred only) which is the
compensation awarded towards
future loss of income due to
disability.
The respondent No.2 is liable to
pay the compensation to the
SCCH-25 44 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
claimants and directed to deposit
the same within 60 days from the
date of this judgment.
On deposit of compensation,
the petitioners of both cases
entitled to withdraw 70% and
remaining 30% shall be invested as
FD in any nationalized bank for a
period of three years.
The Advocates fee of Rs.1,000/-
fixed.
Keep the copies of this
judgment in MVC No.1631/2024.
Draw the award accordingly.
(Directly typed and computerized by the stenographer, corrected by
me then pronounced in the open Court on this the 17th day of June,
2025)
(RAGHAVENDRA R.)
XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT,
Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined for the Petitioner:
PW.1 : Sri. Shashidar B.
PW.2 : Sri. Ranganna S.S.
PW.3 : Sri. Nagaraja G.V.
PW.4 : Sri. Chidananda
SCCH-25 45 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
PW.5 : Dr. B. Ramesh
PW.6 : Dr. Chidanand K.J.C.
List of documents marked for the petitioner:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR with complaint
Ex.P2 True copy of Spot mahazar
Ex.P3 True copy of Statement of witnessEx.P4 True copy of Wound certificate
Ex.P5 True copy of Seizure mahazar
Ex.P6 True copy of IMV report
Ex.P7 True copy of Spot sketch
Ex.P8 True copy of charge sheet
Ex.P9 True copy of Notice and reply
u/Sec.133 of MV Act
Ex.P10 Notarized copy of Adhaar card of
petitioner
Ex.P11 Notarized copy of PAN card of
petitioner
Ex.P12 Discharge summaries 5 in nos
Ex.P13 Medical bills 5 in nos
Ex.P14 Medical prescriptions (one original
and 2 copies)Ex.P15 Two photos with CD
Ex.P16 X-rays 3 in nos
Ex.P17 Authorization letter
Ex.P18 Copy of MLC register extracts 2 in nosEx.P19 Copy of Police intimation
SCCH-25 46 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024Ex.P20 Authorization letter
Ex.P21 Copy of MLC register extract
(compared with original and same is
returned)
Ex.P22 Copy of Police intimation (compared
with original and same is returned)
Ex.P23 Case sheets 4 in nos
Ex.P24 True copy of my PW-4 statement
Ex.P25 True copy of Wound certificate
Ex.P26 Notarized copy of Adhaar card PW-4
Ex.P27 Notarized copy of PAN card PW-4
Ex.P28 Discharge summary
Ex.P29 Medical bills 6 in nos
Ex.P30 Photos 3 in nos with one CD
Ex.P31 OPD records
Ex.P32 X-rays 13 in nos
Ex.P33 CT scan 3 in nos
Ex.P34 Medical bills 10 in nos
Ex.P35 OPD record
Ex.P36 X-ray
Ex.P37 Case sheet
Ex.P38 X-ray
Ex.P39 Statement of WitnessesList of witnesses examined for the Respondents.
RW.1 : Sri. Ananda M.
SCCH-25 47 MVC No.918/2024
& MVC No.1631/2024
List of documents marked for the Respondents:
Ex.R.1 : Copy of Insurance policy
(RAGHAVENDRA R.)
XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT,
Bangalore.
Digitally signed by
RAMACHANDRAPPA
RAMACHANDRAPPA RAGHAVENDRA
RAGHAVENDRA
Date: 2025.06.18
11:50:40 +0530