Bangalore District Court
Krishnappa G N vs Gangaraju on 10 July, 2025
KABC020344512023
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 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025
MVC No.7242/2023
PETITIONER: Sri. G.N.Krishnappa
S/o Nanjappa,
Aged about 73 years,
R/at Doddamaralli,
Doddamaralli
Chikkaballapura,
Karnataka - 562 103.
(By Sri. B.C.Vinoda,
Advocate/s)
V/S
RESPONDENTS: 1. Sri. Gangaraju
S/o Munikrishnappa,
R/at Kanivenaratanapura
Village, Muddenahalli Post,
Chikkaballapur Taluk,
Chikkaballapura,
Karnataka - 562 101.
(RC owner of motorcycle bearing
Reg.No.KA-40-EF-6976)
(Ex-parte)
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.7242/2023
2. Cholamandalam MS
Gen. Ins. Co. Lt.d,
Unit No.4, 9th Floor, Level -
6, Golden heights complex,
59th 'C' Cross,
Rajajinagara, Bangalore.
(Insurer of motorcycle bearing
Reg.No.KA-40-EF-6976)
Policy No.MBLJAW143LHK48335
Validity period 21.04.2021 to
20.04.2026
(By Sri. Kiran Pujar,
Advocate.)
JUDGMENT
This judgment arise out of claim petition filed by the
claimant against respondents under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as “Act”) praying
to award compensation in respect of the injuries
sustained in the road traffic accident occurred on
25.09.2023.
2. The case of the claimant in nutshell is that:
On 25.09.2023 at about 06.10pm, while the petitioner
was riding on Honda Dio Scooter bearing Reg.No.KA-43-S-
3332 by wearing helmet slowly carefully, following traffic
rules and regulations near Yaluvahalli Village, Nandi Hobli,
Chikkaballapura, a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-40-EF-
6976 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, so
as to endangering human life and dashed behind the
petitioner’s scooter. Due to impact the petitioner fell down
and sustained grievous injuries.
SCCH-25 3 MVC No.7242/2023
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that,
Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to
Manipal Hospital, HAL Airport Road, Bangalore, admitted as
an inpatient for 6 days and treated with surgery/operations
(1. Amputation right below knee, 2. Debridement and
curettage) and discahrged with advice for continuous follow
up treatment and complete bed rest. Again for the treatment
he was readmitted to the same hospital on 15.10.2023 to
17.10.2023 and 21.10.2023 to 22.10.2023. So far he has
spent Rs.10,00,000/- towards medical and nourishment
expenses. The petitioner is suffering with permanent
disability. He is not able to lead a normal life as prior to the
accident.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that, prior to
the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy, 73 years,
doing Coolie Work and getting salary of Rs.22,000/- per
month. Due to accidental injuries the petitioner is still under
treatment bound to bed and could not resume his avocation
till the date. The accident is occurred due to the sole act of
rash and negligent riding of rider of motorcycle bearing
Reg.No.KA-40-EF-6976. The Nandi Giridhama Police have
registered a case against the rider of the said vehicle. 1 st
respondent being the RC owner and the 2nd respondent being
the insurer of the said vehicle are jointly and severally liable
to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Hence, petitioner
prays for award for the total compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-
SCCH-25 4 MVC No.7242/2023
5. In pursuance of notice, the respondent No.2 has
appeared and filed written statement. In spite of due service
of summons the respondent No.1 did not appeared hence,
placed ex-parte.
5A. The 2nd respondent in its written statement has
denied the entire petition averments except admitting the
issuance of policy in respect of the motorcycle bearing
Reg.No.KA-40-EF-6976. There is a non compliance of
Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act. Further stated that the rider
of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-40-EF-6976 did not
possess a valid and effective DL as on the date of accident. It
has denied the age, occupation, medical expenses etc.,
Further contended that the compensation claimed by the
petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant. Therefore,
prayed for dismissal of the petition against it.
6. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the
following issues are framed for determination.
Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner proves
that, the accident occurred on 25.09.2023
at 06.10pm due to rash and negligent riding
of rider of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-40-
EF-6976 and in the said accident petitioner
sustained injuries?
Issue No.2: Whether the petitioner is
entitled for compensation? If so. What is the
quantum? From whom?
Issue No.3: What order or Award?
SCCH-25 5 MVC No.7242/2023
7. In order to substantiate the claim petition
contention, the petitioner has examined herself as PW.1 and
got marked 11 documents as per Exs.P.1 to 11. Dr. Ramesh
B. got examined as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P12 & 13. He
has also got examined Subramanya T.K. – Medical Record
Officer at Manipal Hospital, Hebbal, Bangalore as PW.3 and
got marked Exs.P.14 to P.16. On the other side, the
respondent No.2 did not examine any witness nor produced
any documents on their behalf.
8. I have heard the arguments canvassed by the
learned counsel for the parties.
9. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence led
by the parties before this tribunal, my answers to the above
issues 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
#REASONS#
10. Issue No.1: In order to substantiate the claim
petition contention, the petitioner has examined himself as
PW.1. The petitioner has examined Dr.Ramesh B. as PW.2.
He has also got examined Subramnya T.K. as PW.3. Exs.P1
to 11 were marked through Pw.1. The Pws.2 & 3 have got
marked Exs.P12 to 16. The details of the exhibits are given in
the annexure of the judgment.
SCCH-25 6 MVC No.7242/2023
11. The chief examination of the PW.1 is nothing but a
repetition of plaint averments. The PW.1 has been subjected
to cross examination. Nothing has been elicited from the
mouth of the petitioner.
12. The petitioner has totally relied on the police
documents to establish the negligence on the part of the
offending vehicle’s rider. It is no doubt the police have
submitted the charge sheet against the rider of the offending
motorcycle after thorough investigation. The sketch indicates
that the accident occurred on the left side of Nandi Road.
The insurance company has not denied the accident but their
contention is that the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the petitioner also. But the material on record
are clearly depicts that the accident occurred on the left side
of the Nandi Road. So, it is indicates that the rider of the
offending vehicle was in hurried manner and dashed to
petitioner’s motorcycle which was standing beside the road.
So, the arguments does 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 rider.
13. The contention of the insurance company that the
rider of the offending Vehicle was not having valid driving
license at the time of accident. To prove the same it has
neither examined any witness nor produced any documents.
And the police have not charge sheeted for the offense
punishable under section 3 read with 181 of Motor Vehicle
SCCH-25 7 MVC No.7242/2023
Act.
14. A perusal of the charge sheet, the police have
submitted the charge sheet against the accused or rider of
the offending motorcycle. The police have referred section
279 & 338 of IPC against the accused.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in a decision
1
2018 (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. 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
1
Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
SCCH-25 8 MVC No.7242/2023nocturnally. 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
loquitur. 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 State 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
SCCH-25 9 MVC No.7242/2023enormous 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
the 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”
16. The Court cannot adopt strict liability as
conducted in a criminal case to prove rash and negligence on
the part of the rider of the respondent vehicle. But there
SCCH-25 10 MVC No.7242/2023should 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 rider of the insured. The materials
on records are clearly indicates that the accident was
occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the respondent
No.1. So, I hold issue No.1 in the affirmative
17. Issue No.2: The petitioner has produced the
wound certificate and call the medical records from the
concerned hospital. The wound certificate (Ex.P6) discloses
that, the petitioner has sustained (i) Crushed avulsed
lacerated wound present over the right leg done deep
exporting crushed muscles, tenderness, (ii) Compound
fracture of right leg – tibia and fibula which are grievous in
nautre. In this regard, the petitioner has examined one
Mr.Subramanya T.K. as PW.3 and got marked Exs.P.14 to
P.16. During the cross examination of PW.2, nothing
worthwhile is elicited. He has also got examined Dr.Ramesh
B. as PW.2. The PW.2 has stated in the chief examination
affidavit paragraph Nos.3 and 4 that “upon clinical
examination it is found that the petitioner has sustained
crush injury right lower limb, compound fracture shaft of
tibia and fibula, type III C right below knee amputation
debridement, flap cover limb reconstruction and SSG. The
petitioner took treatment for below knee amputation. On
radiological examination found below knee amputation right.
The PW.2 has opined that the petitioner has permanent
SCCH-25 11 MVC No.7242/2023physical disability of 80% of right lower limb which is 40% of
whole body, disability is permanent. He further stated
petitioner needs Prosthetic Fitment for Amputated Limb. The
PW.2 has been subjected to cross examination. The PW.2 has
deposed that he was not treated the petitioner. He has seen
only discharge summary.
18. Before discussing on this point, it is necessary to
advert to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in 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 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.
SCCH-25 12 MVC No.7242/2023
19. 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 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
SCCH-25 13 MVC No.7242/2023range when compared to the physical
disabilities which are enumerated in
the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights
and Full 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.”
20. By considering the 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 amputation of below right knee which is grievous in
nature. And it definitely affected on the movement of the right
SCCH-25 14 MVC No.7242/2023
leg, he cannot walk. The medical officer has given physical
disability of 40% Points for functional loss of malocclusion.
By considering the nature of injuries and treatment, it is
appears to Court that the petitioner has suffered permanent
physical disability of 25%. 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.
21. The claimant has contended that he has taken
treatment at Manipal Hospital, Bangalore for 13 days.
Further the Discharge Summaries of petitioner produced by
the Ex.P.8 indicates that, the petitioner was admitted on
25.09.2023 and discharged on 30.09.2023 and from
15.10.2023 to 17.10.2023 and from 21.10.2023 to
22.10.2023 and from 27.10.2023 to 28.10.2023 at Manipal
Hospital, Bangalore. The petitioner has produced the
medical/cash bills of Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru for total
amount of Rs.92,311/-. Out of these bills the petitioner has
also produced Modular leg prosthesis purchased bill for
Rs.65,730/-. 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,92,311/- as compensation
to the claimant under the head of treatment and medical
expenses. As supra said, the petitioner has admitted in the
said Hospital as inpatient for a period of nearly 13 days.
Hence, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.250/-per
SCCH-25 15 MVC No.7242/2023
day for attendant and Rs.250/- for food and nourishment
charges, which would comes Rs.6,500/-. A sum of
Rs.6,500/- is awarded under the head of attendant, food
and nourishment charges.
(ii) LOSS OF EARNING
22. The claimant has contended that, he was working
as a Coolie and was earning of Rs.22,000/- per month. In
this regard, the petitioner has not produced any documents
nor examined any witness. He has failed to prove his exact
income. So, considering the nature of work notional income
of Rs.16,000/-pm. is calculated to award loss of earning, it
would meets the ends of justice. Therefore, I award
Rs.7,000/- to the claimant under the head of loss of
earning during the treatment.
(b) LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING ON ACCOUNT OF
PERMANENT DISABILITY:
23. The claimant has examined the Doctor to
substantiate the disability as PW-2. As already discussed
above, the petitioner was suffered disability. The medical
officer has given physical disability of 40% Points for
functional loss of malocclusion. By considering the nature of
injuries and treatment, it is appears to Court that the
petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability of 25%.
As per the petition averments, the age of the claimant is 73
years. But, the Aadhar Card marked at EX.P11 clearly
discloses that, the age of the petitioner was 73 years. The
petitioner has produced Modular leg prosthesis purchased
SCCH-25 16 MVC No.7242/2023
bill for Rs.65,730/-. It means the petitioner is used the
prosthesis for his routine daily works. Therefore, the age of
the claimant is considered as 73 years to assess the loss of
future earning and the multiplier is 5. As I have already
stated the notional income of the claimant is Rs.16,000/-pm,
The loss of future earning is calculated as Rs.16,000/-
(Monthly income) X 12 (Months) X 5 (multiplier) X 25
(disability)100 = Rs.2,40,000/- 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 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.
24. The claimant has undergone pain and suffering
during the amputation of right leg below knee and during the
rehabilitation period. Therefore, I award Rs.50,000/- as
compensation to the claimant under the head of pain and
suffering.
25. As per the version of PW.2, the Petitioner needs
Posthetic Fitment for Amputated Limb. In this regard the
petitioner has produced purchase of Posthetic Fitment for
Amputated Limb bill for Rs.65,730/- which is included in the
SCCH-25 17 MVC No.7242/2023
medical bills. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled any amount
under the head of Future Medical Expenses.
26. The claimant in all entitled for just compensation
under the following heads:
Sl. NATURE OF THE HEADS COMPENSATION
No.
01 Medical Expenses Rs.92,311=0002 Loss of income during Rs. 7,000 =00
treatment03 Attendant, Food & Rs.6,500 =00
Nourishment charges04 Pain and Suffering Rs.50,000=00
05 Loss of future earning on Rs.2,40,000 =00
account of disability
TOTAL Rs.3,95,811=00
27. 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.2,40,000/-. Deducting the same from Rs.3,95,811/-, the
amount that would fetch interest will be Rs.1,55,811/-.
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.3,95,811/- with interest at 6% per annum on
Rs.1.55.811/- from the date of petition till realization.
28. The next question is the liability to pay the said
compensation. As the respondents failed to prove their
defense. The petitioner proved that as on the date of accident
SCCH-25 18 MVC No.7242/2023
the policy was in force. Therefore, Respondent No.2 is to
indemnify the respondent No.1 and liable to pay
compensation to the petitioner. Hence, I answer issue No.2
partly in affirmative
29. Issue No.3:- In view of my findings to the above
Issues, I proceed to pass the following:
-: ORDER :-
The claim petition filed by
claimant under section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is allowed in
part as against respondent No.2.
The Petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.3,95,811/-(Rupees
Three Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand
Eight Hundred Eleven Only) with
interest at 6% per annum on
Rs..1,55,811/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty
Five Thousand Eight Hundred Eleven
only) from the date of petition till
realization.
The petitioner is not entitled for
interest on Rs.2,40,000/-(Rupees Two
Lakhs Forty Thousand only) which is
the compensation awarded towards
future loss of income due to disability.
The respondent No.2 is liable to
SCCH-25 19 MVC No.7242/2023
pay the compensation to the claimant
and directed to deposit the same within
60 days from the date of this judgment.
On deposit of compensation, the
claimant is entitled to withdraw entire
compensation amount through e-
payment on proper identification as per
rules.
The Advocates fee of Rs.1,000/-
fixed.
Draw the award accordingly.
(Directly typed and computerized by the stenographer, corrected by me
then pronounced in the open Court on this the 10th day of July, 2025)
(RAGHAVENDRA.R)
XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT,
Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
List of Witnesses examined for Petitioner:
PW.1 Sri. G.N.Krishnappa PW.2 Dr.Ramesh B. PW.3 Sri. Subramanya T.K.
List of Documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR with complaint
Ex.P2 True copy of Spot sketch
Ex.P3 True copy of Notice and reply u/Sec.133
of MV Act
SCCH-25 20 MVC No.7242/2023Ex.P4 True copy of Police intimation
Ex.P5 True copy of IMV report
Ex.P6 True copy of Wound certificate
Ex.P7 True copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P8 Discharge summaries 4 in nos
Ex.P9 Medical bills 24 in nos
Ex.P10 Advance receipts 10 in nos
Ex.P11 Notarized copy of Adhaar card of
petitioner (compared with original and
same is returned)
Ex.P12 OPD card
Ex.P13 X-ray
Ex.P14 Authorization letter
Ex.P15 Copy of MLC extract (compared with
original and same is returned)
Ex.P16 Case sheetList of Witnesses examined for Respondent/s:
— NIL —
List of documents exhibited for Respondent:
— NIL —
(RAGHAVENDRA.R)
XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT,
Bangalore.
Digitally signed by
RAMACHANDRAPPA
RAMACHANDRAPPA RAGHAVENDRA
RAGHAVENDRA
Date: 2025.07.15
11:17:36 +0530