Bangalore District Court
Tharun Kumar K.C vs Bhagya on 17 June, 2025
1 MVC.No.2025/2023
SCCH-10
KABC020091892023
Digitally signed
by
RAGHAVENDRA
RAGHAVENDRA SHETTIGAR
SHETTIGAR
Date:
2025.06.18
17:47:25 +0530
IN THE COURT OF XIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
A.C.J.M & MEMBER-MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. (SCCH-10)
Dated this the 17th day of June 2025
PRESENT:
SHRI. RAGHAVENDRA SHETTIGAR
B.A., LL.B.
XIV ADDL. S.C.J., A.C.J.M &
MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU.
M.V.C No.2025/2023
PETITIONER:
Tharun Kumar. K.C,
S/o. Chalapathy,
Aged about 20 years.
Residing at:
Kanisettyhalli, N. Kothur,
Chikkaballapura - 563125.
(By Pleader Sri. T.H.G)
//Versus//
RESPONDENTS:
1) Bhagya,
No.112, Ground Floor,
C/o. Prakash Building,
Anchepalya Village,
Nagasandra,
Near Anjaneya Swamy Temple,
2 MVC.No.2025/2023
SCCH-10
Bengaluru -560073.
2) Reliance General Insurance
Co. Ltd., Regional Office at:
# 28, 5th Floor,
Southern Portion East Wing,
Centenary Building,
M.G. Road, Bengaluru - 560001.
(R.1 - Exparte)
(R.2 By Pleader Smt. Suma)
:: J U D G M E N T :
:
The claim petition has been filed by the petitioner
against the respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles
Act seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest for
the injuries sustained by him in a Road Traffic Accident that
occurred on 27.01.2023.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as under:
That on 27.01.2023 at about 6.45 p.m., the petitioner
was riding Suzuki Axis two wheeler bearing Reg. No. KL-11-
AT-8645 on extreme left side of Bengaluru – Tumkuru
NH.48 Road with slowly and cautiously and when he
reached opp. Kemwell Gate, near Begur, at that time, the
3 MVC.No.2025/2023
SCCH-10rider of Honda Dio Two wheeler bearing Reg. No.KA-04-KB-
9840 came from opposite direction with high speed and in a
rash and negligent manner to extreme right side i.e. wrong
side of the road and dashed against the petitioner’s Motor
cycle. Due to the said impact, the petitioner fell down and
sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident,
the injured petitioner was shifted to Siddarth hospital, from
there referred to Harsha hospital and after first aid he
referred to Sparsh hospital and due to severe injuries and
for further treatment he was shifted to Sapthagiri hospital,
wherein he took inpatient treatment from 28.01.2023 to
10.03.2023. He has spent more than Rs.3,00,000/- towards
medical and other expenses.
3. Further contended that, prior to the accident, he was
hale and healthy, he was doing coolie work and earning a
sum of Rs.25,000/- p.m. On account of the injuries sustained
in the accident, he could not do his work, he became
permanently disabled and put to irreparable loss of income.
4 MVC.No.2025/2023
SCCH-10
Further, the alleged accident had taken place due to rash
and negligent riding of the rider of the offending vehicle
bearing Reg. No. KA-04-KB-9840. The respondent No.1
being owner and the respondent No.2 being insurer of the
offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the present petition.
4. In pursuance to the Petition notice, the respondent
No.1 has not appeared before the Court, remained absent
and placed exparte. The respondent No.2 has appeared
before the Court through its counsel and filed the written
statement.
5. The brief contentions of the respondent No.2
(insurer) are as under:
The respondent No.2 being the insurer of offending
vehicle has denied the accident, the manner in which the
accident took place, rash and negligent riding of the rider of
the offending vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-04-KB-9840 and
its involvement in the alleged accident. Further denied the
issuance of insurance policy in respect of the offending
5 MVC.No.2025/2023
SCCH-10vehicle and it is subject to confirmation from the concerned
Branch office. Further contended that, the petitioner has
also contributed for the cause of the alleged accident and he
was not wearing helmet at the time of accident. Further the
respondent No.2 has denied the injuries sustained by the
petitioner in the alleged accident, treatment taken for those
injuries, medical expenses incurred and permanent
disability suffered by him and also denied the age, avocation
and income of the petitioner. The offending vehicle Motor
cycle owner has permitted to carry three persons to ply on
the road and hence, he has violated the rules and
regulations of the Motor Vehicles Act and hence the
respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation. The
compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and
exorbitant. On these grounds, respondent No.2 prayed for
dismissal of the claim petition against it.
6. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues
were framed:
6 MVC.No.2025/2023
SCCH-10
ISSUES
1) Whether the petitioner proves that, he has
sustained grievous injuries due to the
actionable negligent riding of Motor cycle
bearing Reg. No.KA-04-KB-9840 by its rider,
in RTA took pace on 27.01.2023 at about 6.45
p.m., on Bengaluru – Tumkuru NH-48 Road,
opp Kemwell Gate, T. Begur, Bengaluru ?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation as prayed for? If so, at what
rate and from whom ?
3) What order or award?
7. The petitioner, in order to prove his case examined
himself as PW-1 and examined the doctor as PW-2 and in all
got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. The respondent
No.2 examined its Deputy Manager as RW-1 and in all got
marked documents as Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2.
8. Heard the arguments. Perused the materials available
on record.
9. My findings to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative
7 MVC.No.2025/2023
SCCH-10Issue No.3 : As per final order,
for the following :
R E A S O N S
10. ISSUE No.1:
The petitioner has filed this petition claiming
compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with respect to the injuries
sustained by him in the road traffic accident that took place
on 27.01.2023. Ex.P.1 is the copy of the FIR No.0033/2023 of
Nelamangala Traffic PS and Ex.P.2 is the First information
statement. On perusal of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2, it reveal that
I.O. has registered a case against the rider of the Honda Dio
Motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-04-KB-9840 for the
commission of offences punishable u/s 279 and 337 of IPC.
Ex.P.6 is the copy of charge sheet filed by the Nelamangala
Traffic PS. On perusal of Ex.P.8, it reveals that, after
investigation the police have filed charge sheet against one
Mr. Sudharshan. N, who is none other than the rider of the
offending Motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA-04-KB-9840 for
the offence punishable under section 279 and 338 of IPC R/w
8 MVC.No.2025/2023
SCCH-10Sec.177 of Motor Vehicles Act.
11. Further, as per wound certificate i.e. Ex.P.5 produced
by petitioner and Ex.P.8 discharge summary, it appears that
the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the alleged
accident. On perusal of the aforesaid documents, it is
sufficient to conclude that the accident in question had taken
place due to the actionable negligence of the rider of the
offending vehicle and petitioner has sustained injuries in the
alleged accident.
12. As discussed supra, the IO after investigation has filed
charge sheet against the rider of the offending Motor cycle
showing him as an accused in the said case and as per the
police records, it reveal that the rider of the offending vehicle
was riding the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and
has caused the accident.
13. Besides, it is settled principles of law that, in a motor
vehicles accident compensation cases strict proof of
negligence is not required. This view is supported by the law
9 MVC.No.2025/2023
SCCH-10
declared by Hon’ble Apex Court in a decision reported in
2009(13) SCC page 530 in the case of Bimla Devi and
others Vs. Himachalapradesh Road Transport
Corporation and in AIR 2011 SC page 1504 in the case of
Parameshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others.
14. Thus, by considering the present facts of the case and
the materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that, the
accident in question had occurred due to the negligent and
rash riding of the rider of the Motor cycle bearing Reg.
No.KA-04-KB-9840. Hence, Issue No.1 is answered in the
Affirmative.
15. ISSUE No.2:-
Before proceeding to discuss this issue, I feel it
necessary to reproduce the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in a decision reported in 2011(1) S.C.C page 343 in
the case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar. In para No.5 of
the judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court has mentioned the heads
under which compensation is to be awarded in personal
10 MVC.No.2025/2023
SCCH-10injury cases. I reproduce the same hereunder for
convenience. Same reads as follows;
The heads under which compensation is
awarded in personal injury cases are the
following;
Pecuniary damages (special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment,
hospitalization, Medicines, transportation,
nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure.
Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the
injured would have made had he not been
injured, comprising):
Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
b. Loss of future earning on account of
permanent disability.
Future Medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (general damages)
Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
Loss of amenities (and / or loss of prospects
of marriage)
Loss of expectation of life (shortening of
normal longevity).
11 MVC.No.2025/2023
SCCH-10
16. Keeping in view the law declared in the
aforementioned decision, I have carefully perused the entire
materials placed on record. The wound certificate of the
petitioner has been marked as Ex.P.5. As per the wound
certificate, the petitioner has sustained, 1) Severe head
injury, 2) Undisplaced fracture of Atlas and 3) right pneumo
thorax and doctor opined that the said injuries are grievous
in nature.
17. In this case, the petitioner has produced discharge
summary as per Ex.P.8. On perusal of Ex.P.8 it reveals that,
the petitioner was admitted to the Sapthagiri hospital,
Bengaluru on 28.01.2023 and discharged on 10.03.2023.
18. Ex.P.9 are the medical bills amounting to Rs.1,88,512/-
and Ex.P.10 are the medical prescriptions. The medical bills
produced by the petitioner appears to be genuine. Hence, the
petitioner is entitled for actual medical bills and same is
rounded off to Rs.1,89,000/- under the head of Medical
expenses.
12 MVC.No.2025/2023
SCCH-10
19. As per the medical documents it appear that, the
petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and he is suffering
from physical disability. By considering the nature of injury,
the petitioner might have suffered pain and agony.
Considering the age of the petitioner, I am of the opinion
that if Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards pain and sufferings it
would be just. If Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards
nourishment and diet food it would be just.
20. The petitioner has contended that, due to the injuries,
he is not yet recovered, getting unbearable pain, often head
ache and giddiness and despite effective treatment he could
not get earlier physical fitness and undergone deep mental
shock, pain and suffering due to permanent disability. He
has further stated that due to the disability he has lost his
earning capacity. In order to establish the disability, the
doctor was examined before the Court as PW-2. PW-2 during
his evidence has deposed that, due to the accidental injuries
the petitioner has impaired memory and intelligence. As per
13 MVC.No.2025/2023
SCCH-10
the neuro psychological assessment, the suggestive disability
was 42% to 70% and 10% disability to the whole body.
Though PW-2 doctor was cross-examined by the counsel for
the respondent No.2, nothing was elicited from the mouth of
the witness to disprove his evidence.
21. According to the petitioner, he was aged about 20 years
at the time of accident and he was doing coolie work and
earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- p.m.
22. To prove the occupation and income of the petitioner,
the petitioner has not produced any documents. Hence, the
notional income of the petitioner has to be taken into
consideration. At this juncture, I would like to refer the
decision reported in 2023(4) KCCR 3603 (DB) between
Aneesahemmed Vs Mohammed Yusuf and Another. In
the above decision the Hon’ble High Court has taken into
consideration the notional income as fixed by the Karnataka
State Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru (KSLSA in
short). The KSLSA, Bengaluru as per letter dated
14 MVC.No.2025/2023
SCCH-10
26.02.2022 – 01/NLA/2022/550/2022 has circulated the
notional income chart prepared by them. As per the said
notional income chart, the income for the year 2022 is fixed
as Rs.15,500/- Therefore, in view of the decision of the
Hon’ble High Court and the letter of KSLSA and also in the
absence of proof of income, this Court is of the opinion that,
if the notional income is taken into consideration for
assessing the income of the petitioner would be just and
proper. The accident was occurred on 27.01.2023. Therefore,
this Court has taken Rs.16,000/- as monthly income of the
petitioner.
23. On perusal of the medical documents and medical
evidence it is crystal clear that, the petitioner cannot do his
normal work as he was doing earlier. Hence, the disability of
the petitioner will definitely come in the way of the
petitioner in his future earnings. The disability assessed by
the doctor appears to be based on the guidelines issued by
the Central Government. Considering the nature of work of
15 MVC.No.2025/2023
SCCH-10
the petitioner and considering the disability, I assess the
petitioner’s loss of future earning capacity as 10%.
24. To prove his age, the petitioner has produced the
Aadhaar card as per Ex.P.7. As per Ex.P.7, the date of birth
of petitioner is shown as 10.06.2003. The accident was
occurred on 27.01.2023. Hence, the age of the petitioner is
considered as 20 years at the time of accident and multiplier
applicable for his age is 18. The loss of future earning
capacity is assessed as 10%. The annual income is assessed
Rs.1,92,000/-(Rs.16,000 x 12). Therefore, the loss of future
income would be Rs.1,92,000/-(annual income) X 18
(multiplier) X 10% = Rs.3,45,600/-. Hence, the petitioner is
entitled for loss of future income of Rs.3,45,600/-.
25. The petitioner has contended that, due to the injury
and disability he is unable to do any physical strain works
and the disability is coming in the way of his day today
activities and avocation. Hence, considering the injuries
suffered, this Court is of the opinion that, due to disability,
16 MVC.No.2025/2023
SCCH-10
the petitioner must forego some comforts in his life. Hence, I
conclude that if Rs.40,000/- is awarded towards loss of
amenities it would be just.
26. Thus, petitioner is entitled for compensation under the
following heads;
Sl.
Heads Compensation
No.
1) Medical expenses Rs. 1,89,000 /-
2) Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/-
3) Nourishment and diet food Rs. 20,000 /-
Loss of Future earning Rs. 3,45,600/-
4) capacity due to permanent
disability
5) Loss of amenities Rs. 40,000 /-
Total Rs.6,44,600/-
Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of
Rs.6,44,600/-.
27. REGARDING LIABILITY:
As discussed supra, this Court has arrived at the
conclusion that, the accident had occurred due to the rash
and negligent riding of the rider of the Honda Dio two
17 MVC.No.2025/2023
SCCH-10wheeler bearing Reg. No.KA-04-KB-9840. In this case, the
respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 is the
insurer of the offending vehicle. The respondent No.1 has
insured the vehicle with respondent No.2, as such,
respondent No.2 has to indemnify the respondent No.1. The
RW-1 has produced Ex.R.2 i.e. copy of insurance policy and
it reveals that the Insurance Policy was in force at the time
of the accident.
28. The respondent No.2 has taken the contention that the
owner of the offending vehicle has permitted to carry three
persons in the said motor cycle and thereby violated the
policy conditions. During the cross-examination of RW-1,
who is the Deputy Manager of the respondent No.2 company
has deposed that, in the insurance policy there was specific
condition that if 3 persons are carried in a motor cycle would
amount to violation of policy condition. Though three
persons traveling in a motor cycle is an offence under Section
128 of Motor Vehicles Act and same is punishable U/Sec. 177
18 MVC.No.2025/2023
SCCH-10
of Motor Vehicles Act, that cannot be considered as violation
of policy conditions. Though the respondent No.2 has
contended that, the petitioner was riding the motor cycle
without wearing a head gear and thereby he has also
contributed to the accident, in the instant case, the police
have not filed any charge sheet against the petitioner for not
wearing helmet at the time of accident. Therefore, the
defence taken by the respondent No.2 cannot be accepted.
By considering the valid insurance policy on the date of
accident, this Court is of the opinion that, the respondent
No.1 being RC owner and the respondent No.2 being insurer
of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to
satisfy the award. The respondent No.2 being insurance
company is liable to indemnify the respondent No.1, has to
pay the compensation of Rs.6,44,600/- along with interest @
6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Accordingly, I answer the issue No.2 partly in the
Affirmative.
19 MVC.No.2025/2023
SCCH-10
29. Issue No.3:
In view of my finding on Issue No.1 and 2, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is partly allowed
with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for total compensation
of Rs.6,44,600/- with simple interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till realization of entire
compensation awarded.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation. The
respondent No.2 being insurer is directed to deposit
the entire compensation amount with interest within
30 days as contemplated under Sec.168(3) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Out of the award amount, 25% of the award
amount shall be invested in fixed deposit for a period
of 3 years in any nationalized bank of petitioner’s
choice and balance amount shall be released in the
20 MVC.No.2025/2023
SCCH-10
name of petitioner through NEFT/RTGS by way of E-
payment on proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to stenographer directly on computer, typed by her,
corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this
the 17th day of June, 2025).
(RAGHAVENDRA SHETTIGAR)
XIV ADDL.S.C.J., A.C.J.M &
MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU
ANNEXURES
List of witnesses examined on petitioners’ side:
P.W.1 Mr. Tharun Kumar. K.C. P.W.2 Dr. Shailesh. A.V. Rao
List of documents exhibited on petitioners’ side:
Ex-P1 True copy of FIR
Ex-P2 True copy of Complaint
Ex-P3 True copy of Spot mahazar
Ex-P4 True copy of IMV report
Ex-P5 True copy of Wound certificate
Ex-P6 True copy of Charge sheet
Ex-P7 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card
Ex.P8 Discharge summary
Ex-P9 Medical bills
Ex-P10 Medical prescriptions
Ex-P11 Clinical summary
Ex-P12 OPD Records
21 MVC.No.2025/2023
SCCH-10
Ex-P13 CT scan brain report
Ex-P14 Neuro Psychological assessment report
Ex-P15 Mini mental state examination report
List of witnesses examined on behalf
respondents side:
R.W.1 Mr. Thrishi Subbaiah
List of documents marked on behalf respondents
side:
Ex-R1 Authorization letter
Ex-R2 Insurance policy copy
XIV ADDL.S.C.J., A.C.J.M. &
MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU