Bangalore District Court
Imtiyaz Ali vs Tata Aig Gen Ins Co Ltd on 17 July, 2026
KABC020279162023
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU.
(SCCH-24)
Presided Over by Sri.ISHWAR S.M
B.A.LL.B.,(Spl)
XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACJM,
MEMBER - MACT,
BENGALURU.
Dated:- This the 17th day of July 2026
M.V.C. NO. 6048 OF 2023
Petitioner Imtiyaz Ali,
S/o Hakkim Mohammed Yosuf,
aged about 44 years,
R/at Gangavara Chowdappanahalli,
Budigere, Bengaluru Rural District,
Bengaluru-562129.
(By Sri.Chandrashekar.C., Advocate)
-VERSUS-
Respondents 1. Tata Aig General Insurance
Company Limited,
Regd. Office : 15th Floor, Tower A,
Peninsula Business Park,
SCCH-24 2 MVC 6048/2023
Ganpatrao Kadam Marg,
Off Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013.
And also branch office at
Empire Hotel, 2nd Floor,
J.P & Devi Jambukeshwara Arcades,
69, Millers Road, Bengaluru-560051.
Reptd. by its Branch Manager
(Policy bearing No.6200454251, valid
from 16-07-2022 to 15-07-2023)
(Respondent no.1 is delated as per
order dated 10-01-2025)
(By Sri.Muralidhar Negavar., Advocate)
2. R.N.Venkatesh Vaishnav
S/o R.Narasa Ram,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at 9-1-58/55, 2nd Cross,
Panduranga Nagar, Hindupur,
Anantapur,
Andhra Pradesh-515201.
(Owner of the offending vehicle
bearing No.AP-39 KJ 8083)
(By Sri.H.R.Kalyan Chakravarthy., Advocate)
3. H.Somasekhar,
S/o P.Narasimhappa,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at 7-8, Meenakuntapalli,
SCCH-24 3 MVC 6048/2023
Anantapur,
Andhra Pradesh-515331.
(Driver of the offending vehicle)
(By Sri.H.R.Kalyan Chakravarthy., Advocate)
4. BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
At Unit No- 201, 2nd Floor-804,
Avenue 35th Cross, 9th Main Road,
4th Block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru-560011.
Represented by its Branch Manager
(Policy No.KIA/SN841652 valid from
16.07.2021 to 15.07.2024)
(By Sri.Padma S Uttur., Advocate)
:J U D G M E N T:
This claim petition is filed by the petitioner under
Section 166 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, seeking
compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road
traffic accident.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:-
That on 22-11-2022 at about 1.50 pm, while the
petitioner was proceeding in his motor cycle bearing
Reg.No.KA-53-EJ-0313 from Bagepalli on the left side of
the road and when he reached near petrol bunk at
SCCH-24 4 MVC 6048/2023Setudinne, at that time, the driver of the Car bearing
Reg.No.AP-39-KJ-8083 came at high speed in a rash and
negligent manner and hit to the two wheeler from back
side, result of which the petitioner fell down along with his
motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately,
he was taken to Government Hospital, Chikkaballapur,
wherein first aid treatment was given and later he was
shifted to Silicon City Hospital, Hoskote, wherein he was
admitted as an inpatient from 22-11-2022 to 26-11-2022
and underwent surgeries. The doctor advised the
petitioner for bed rest with regular follow up treatment.
Prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy and was
doing business by establishing the mobile shop and
earning monthly Rs.50,000/- per month. Due to
permanent disability petitioner is not in a position to do
the said work. He has suffered pain and sufferings,
permanent disability, loss of income, loss of future income
and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
3. Respondent no.1 is deleted as per order dated
10-01-2025. On service of notice, the Respondent no.3
appeared through his counsel but has not filed written
statement and thereby uncontested the petition.
SCCH-24 5 MVC 6048/2023
4. Respondent no.2/the owner of Car bearing
Reg.No.AP-39-KJ-8083 has filed written statement and
contended that he is the RC owner of the car and the same
was insured with the 1st respondent and the policy was in
force as on the date of accident. The respondent no.2
further contended that the driver/respondent no.3 of the
car was holding driving licence, that the petitioner was
riding his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and
while overtaking the Car and lost control of his motor cycle
and suddenly dashed against the car driven by the
respondent no.3.
5. Respondent No.4- /the insurer of Car bearing
No.AP-39-KJ-8083 has filed the written statement and
denied the policy issued in the name of R.N Venkatesh
Vaishnav in respect of vehicle bearing No.AP-39-KJ-8083.
It is contended that the present claim petition is barred by
limitation under the provisions of the motor Vehicle Act, as
the petitioner has filed the claim petition after lapse of 6
months from the date of statutory period. It is further
contended that the alleged accident has occurred due to
the negligence on the part of the petitioner himself, that
the claim petition is liable to the dismissed for non joinder
of necessary parties viz., Insurer/Insured of the Motorcycle
SCCH-24 6 MVC 6048/2023
bearing reg.No.KA-53-EJ-0313 and that the petitioner was
not wearing the helmet and was not having valid and
effective driving license.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings following
Issues were framed.
: I S S U E S:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he has
sustained injuries on account of road traffic
accident on 22-11-2022 at about 1.50 p.m.,
near Petrol Bunk, Setudinne, Kasaba Hobli,
Chickballapura, due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of Car bearing No.AP-39-
KJ-8083?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation as claimed? If so, what is
the quantum? From whom payable?
3. What order or award?
7. In order to prove the case, the petitioner
examined himself as PW.1 and two witnesses are
examined as PW.2 and PW.3 and got marked in all 18
documents as Ex.P.1 to 18. On the other hand, the
respondent no.4 has examined its Legal Manager as RW.1
and got marked documents as per Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.
SCCH-24 7 MVC 6048/2023
8. Heard argument of the petitioner and
respondent no.4 and perused the materials placed on
record.
9. My findings on the above-referred Issues are as
under:-
Issue No.1 :- In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 :- Partly Affirmative.
Issue No.3 :- As per the final order,
for the following.
:REASONS:
10. Issue No.1 : – In order to explain the actionable
negligence of the driver of offending vehicle, P.W.1 has filed
his affidavit explaining the vivid picture of the accident
that took place on 22.11.2022 at about 1.50 p.m, when he
proceeding in his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-53-EJ-
0313 from Bagepalli on the left side of the road, when
reached near petrol bunk at Setudinne, at that time, the
driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.AP-39-KJ-8083
(hereinafter referred as to the offending vehicle) came at
high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against two wheeler from back side and caused the
SCCH-24 8 MVC 6048/2023
accident. P.W.1 further deposed about the nature of
injuries sustained, treatment taken and the amount spent
for treatment etc.
11. In support of the claim and to prove the rash
and negligent driving of offending vehicle by the driver,
P.W.1 has relied upon Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and Ex.P8 to Ex.P12
which are the police records such as F.I.R with Complaint,
charge sheet, Spot mahazar, Notices u/Sec.133 of IMV
Act, reply notice, order sheet in CC No.798/2023, wound
certificate, IMV report, Photographs of damaged vehicles,
RC of petitioner, Insurance policy, Statement of witnesses,
etc.,
12. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Jamad
Ali, case has been registered against the driver of offending
vehicle in Crime No 0212/2022 of Chickballapura Police
Station for the offence punishable under section 279, 337
of IPC and u/Sec.134 of M. V. Act. The Investigation officer
after investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of
the offending vehicle for the offence punishable under
Section 279,337 and 338 of IPC and u/Sec.187 of M.V.
Act.
SCCH-24 9 MVC 6048/2023
13. On perusal of the contention of the petitioner,
he is contended that the offending vehicle was dashed him
from behind and caused the accident. Even the offending
vehicle was also dashed to the divider present in the said
road. The respondent no.2 has contended that while
overtaking the Car the petitioner has rash and negligently
driven his motorcycle and lost his control and dashed to
the offending Car. Therefore the petitioner is in negligent
in occurrence of the said accident. The respondent no.4
also contended that due to negligence on the part of the
petitioner the said accident was occurred. But on perusal
of the oral testimony of PW.1 and the police records, the
PW.1, has deposed that the offending Car dashed against
him from his behind and caused the accident. The Ex.P1
is the FIR and complaint, Ex.P2 is the Final report, Ex.P3
is the Spot mahazar and Ex.P5 is the ordersheet which
categorically reveals that when the petitioner was
proceeding near the spot of accident. The offending vehicle
was came at high speed in rash and negligently and
dashed to the two wheeler of the petitioner. Due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending
vehicle the said accident was occurred. Even from Ex.P5 it
is clear that the driver of the offending vehicle has
admitted the guilty and paid the fine amount. Therefore,
SCCH-24 10 MVC 6048/2023
from the said oral, coupled with documentary evidence, it
is clear that the said accident was caused by the driver of
the offending vehicle by driving the said car in rashly and
negligently and in high speed. Even there is a evidence
forthcoming, that the said offending vehicle after dashed to
the two wheeler has also dashed to the divider of the road.
On perusal of the documents Ex.P9 the photographs, it
reveals that, the offending vehicle was got damaged in
front right side, as well as mud guard of the right of side of
the said vehicle was also got damaged. The two wheeler
has got damaged from its hind side as well as right side.
From the said documentary evidence it is clear that the
offending vehicle has hit to the two wheeler from behind,
therefore there are damages in front of the offending
vehicle and hind side of the motorcycle, which
corroborates the case of the petitioner.
14. The counsel for the respondent no.4 has argued
that the petitioner is also contributed in occurrence of the
said accident. But on perusal of the police records and oral
testimony nowhere it is forthcoming that the contributory
negligence of the petitioner in causing the accident in
question. Therefore, in this regard argument canvassed by
the counsel for respondent no.4 as no force.
SCCH-24 11 MVC 6048/2023
15. The counsel for respondent no.4 further argued
that the petitioner has not properly explained the delay in
lodging the complaint. But in Ex.P1 FIR the reason for
delay is stated, as the petitioner was admitted in the
hospital. Therefore, there is delay in lodging the complaint.
Even in the complaint the reason is stated by the
complainant. Therefore, the delay of three days is
explained by the petitioner in the lodging the FIR. Hence,
the police records coupled with evidence of PW.1 which
clearly proves the negligent act on the part of the driver of
the offending vehicle. Hence, issue no.1 is answered in the
Affirmative.
16. Issue No.2:- The petitioner has given evidence to
the effect of his sustained grievous injuries. As observed
earlier, petitioner has produced medical documents i.e.,
Wound certificate and discharge summary which are at
Ex.P6 and Ex.P7. On going through the medical
documents it reveal that petitioner has taken treatment at
Silicon City Hospital, wherein he has taken treatment as
an inpatient from 22.11.2022 to 26.11.2022 for a period of
4 days. As per the wound certificate, petitioner has
SCCH-24 12 MVC 6048/2023
sustained four injuries of which injury No.2 is grievous in
nature and injury no.1, 3 and 4 are simple in nature.
17. Mahesh- Medical Record Officer at Silicon City
Hospital, Hoskote is examined as PW.2 and through him
case sheet is marked as Ex.P15.
18. Dr. S.Ramachandra – Senior Consultant in
Orthopaedic and DNB P.G Teacher at General Jayanagar,
Bengaluru is examined as PW.3 and through him OPD Slip
with calculated sheet, X-ray film and Quotation for future
medical expenses are marked as Ex.P16 to Ex.P18. PW.3
has deposed that he examined the petitioner on
08.08.2025 for assessment of disability. PW.3 further
deposed that petitioner has suffered permanent residual
physical disability 42.87% of right lower limb and 21.43%,
which related to whole body and that petitioner needs
surgery for correction of Partial union by exchange nailing
(Removal of Existing Implants and fixing a new one) and
bone grafting.
19. If the cross examination of PW.3 is perused, he
is not treated doctor. He has only examined the X-ray and
has not seen any other document regarding the petioners
further treatment. The petitioner still has the implant fitted
SCCH-24 13 MVC 6048/2023
and external injuries have healed. The petitioner can stand
on the support of both legs.
20. The petitioner being a mobile phone mechanic,
has no problem sitting and performing the said work,
whereas the petitioner states that it is difficult for him to
sit and work for a long time because of the difficulty in
moving his leg. The petitioner experiences pain when he
bends his leg.
21. The petitioner has not been found to have any
lameness in his leg. He has not given an estimate of the
future treatment of the applicant, but the petitioner has
produced a quotation of the cost of future treatment from
another hospital at Ex.P-18.
22. Pw.3 has assessed the disability on particular
limb at 42.87% and on whole body at 21.43%. Therefore, in
such circumstances and for the above stated reasons and
taking into consideration the age of the petitioner, injuries
caused to him, avocation of the petitioner, duration of
treatment and oral and documentary evidence available on
record, this Court is of the opinion that, considering the
physical disability of 18% to the whole body of the
petitioner would be justified. Hence, in the instant case the
SCCH-24 14 MVC 6048/2023
disability of 18% to the whole body of the petitioner is
considered.
23. Hence, considering the nature of injuries
sustained, period of treatment, taken this court is of the
opinion that petitioner is entitled for compensation under
different heads.
24. PAIN AND SUFFERINGS: The petitioner has
sustained right tibia comminuted fracture and right fibula
fracture of which grievous in nature and simple in nature.
Hence taking in to consideration the nature of injuries
sustained, time taken for treatment and sufferings during
the treatment, it is reasonable to hold that petitioner is
entitled for sum of Rs.60,000/- towards pain and
suffering.
25. MEDICAL EXPENSES The petitioner has
contended that he has spent more than Rs.3,00,000/-
towards medical expeses. In this regard, the petitioner has
produced 10 medical bills for Rs.1,87,124/- as per Ex.P13.
Hence, petitioner is entitled for compensation under the
head medical expenses to the tune of Rs.1,87,124/-.
SCCH-24 15 MVC 6048/2023
26. AGE, AVOCATION AND INCOME: The petitioner
has contended that, he was aged about 45 years as on the
date of accident. Petitioner has not produced any
document to prove his age. In medical records, the age of
petitioner is shown as 40 years as per discharge summary,
but in the wound certificate and petition shows that the
age of petitioner is shown as 45-44 years. Hence
considering the wound certificate and petition this court
has taken the age of the petitioner as 45 years.
27. It is stated that petitioner was doing business by
establishing the Mobile shop and earning sum of
Rs.50,000/- per month. But to substantiate the said
contention petitioner has not produced any materials. As
such this court is taking the notional income as prescribed
by the Karnataka Legal Service Authority,Bengaluru.
Therefore in view of the above decision, the accident was
occurred in the year 2022. Therefore, Rs.15,500/- has to
be taken into consideration as monthly income of the
petitioner.
28. LOSS OF INCOME DURING LAID-UP PERIOD:
The petitioner has sustained one grievous injury and has
taken treatment for 4 days as inpatient in Silicon City
Hospital, Bangalore. Hence the nature of injury sustained
SCCH-24 16 MVC 6048/2023by the petitioner which is grievous in nature it is
reasonable to hold that period of 3 months as complete laid
down period. Hence taking in to consideration the
avocation of the petitioner and loss of income caused from
the said avocation this court takes the loss of income
during the laid down period as Rs.15,500/- p.m., for 3
months. Hence petitioner is entitled for sum of
Rs.46,500/- (15,500 X 3) towards loss of income during
the laid down period .
29. ATTENDANT CHARGES, EXTRA NUTRITIOUS
FOOD & INCIDENTAL EXPENSES : :From the evidence of
PW.1 and as borne out by medical records, petitioner has
taken treatment at Silicon City Hospital, Bangalore.
Further for 4 days of hospitalization requires an attendant,
was traveled to hospital for treatment. He has taken
nourishment and needs further nourishment at this age
and incurred other incidental expenses. Therefore all
together incidental expenses is assessed at Rs.30,000/-
taking into consideration the cost of living and value of the
money during the year 2022.
30. LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME DUE TO
DISABILITY: So taking in to consideration the monthly
SCCH-24 17 MVC 6048/2023
income of the petitioner having considered by this tribunal
as Rs.15,500/- p.m and if 18% loss of earning capacity is
considered and when the age of the petitioner at the time of
accident was 45 years, as per Sarla Varma’s case the
multiplier applicable to the age group of 41 to 45 is ’14. So
by applying the multiplier ’14’ the future loss of income
due to disability comes to Rs.4,68,720/- (i.e., 15,500
x12/100 x 18% x14). Hence this Tribunal holds that
petitioner is entitled for Rs.4,68,720/- towards future loss
of income due to disability.
31. FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES: So far as the
future medical expenses is concerned, even though PW.3
has deposed that petitioner needs surgery for correction of
Partial union by exchange nailing (Removal of Existing
Implants and fixing a new one and bone grafting). PW.3
further deposed that he has not given any estimate of the
future treatment of the petitioner, but the petitioner has
shown a quotation of the cost of future treatment from
another hospital. PW.3 has produced Quotation for future
medical expenses issued from Divine Speciality Hospital at
Ex.P18. As per Ex.P18/medical certificate certifying that
the petitioner is suffering from partial Union of Tibia right
with bone loss. The doctor has advised to undergo
SCCH-24 18 MVC 6048/2023
admesum and operation is exchange nailing and bone
grafting. The approximate cost of the said procedure will be
around Rs.3,00,000/-. Hence, this court awards
compensation under the head future medical expenses to
the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-.
32. LOSS OF AMENITIES AND DISCOMFORT: The
petitioner at his age of 45 years has suffered permanent
disability, hence definitely some amount of discomfort and
loss of amenities would have caused to the petitioner.
Hence he is entitled for sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
amenities and discomfort. Thus the Petitioner is entitled
for compensation under the following heads:
Sl. Heads Amount
No.
1. Towards pain & sufferings Rs. 60,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs. 1,87,124/-
3. Towards loss of income during Rs. 46,500/-
laid up period
4. Towards Conveyance, Attendant Rs. 30,000/-
charges and nourishing food
5. Loss of Future Income Rs. 4,68,720/-
6. Future medical expenses Rs. 3,00,000/-
7. Loss of comfort and amenities Rs. 40,000/-
Total Rs. 11,32,344/-
SCCH-24 19 MVC 6048/2023
Therefore this court holds that petitioner is entitled for
Rs.11,32,344/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Thirty Two
Thousand Three Hundred Forty Four only).
33. REGARDING INTEREST & LIABILITY: Having
regard to the nature of the claim and current bank rate of
interest, this Tribunal is of the view that if interest at the
rate of 6% p.a, is awarded it would meet the ends of
justice.
34. As regarding liability is concerned, respondent
No.2 is the RC owner and respondent No.4 is the Insurer of
the offending vehicle. There is no dispute that offending
vehicle was insured with 4th respondent and policy was in
force as on the date of accident. Further the driver of the
offending vehicle had driving license to drive the offending
vehicle.
35. The counsel for the respondent no.4 has
vehemently argued that if this court come to conclusion
that the petitioner is entitled for compensation then the
compensation is to be awarded from the date of impliding
of the respondent no.4 but on persual of the written
statement of the respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 has
SCCH-24 20 MVC 6048/2023
filed written statement and contended that his Insurer is
respondent no.1. Therefore, the petitioner could not made
the respondent no.4 as party at initial stage. Subseqnetly it
was learnt that respondent no.4 is the Insurance company
of the offending vehicle as on the date of accident.
Therefore subsequently the respondent no.4 arryed as
party to the proceedings. Therefore, the said contention of
the respondent no.4 does not holds good.
36. Hence it can be said that all the documents
pertaining to the vehicle in question was valid and in force
as on the date of accident. Hence, the respondent no.2 and
4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation,
however the respondent no.4 is being contractual obligator
is liable to indemnify compensation to the petitioner along
with interest at 6% per annum from the date of accident till
the date of payment of entire amount except the future
medical bill. Therefore, for the above stated reasons,
holding that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.11,32,344/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
(excluding interest on future medical expenses of
Rs.3,00,000/-), from the date of petition till its realization,
from the respondent no.4. Accordingly Issue No.2 is
answered in Partly Affirmative.
SCCH-24 21 MVC 6048/2023
37. Issue No.3: In the light of the findings given on
Issue No.1 and 2, my finding on this Issue is as per the
following final order.
ORDER
The claim petition filed by the petitioner is
hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitioner is entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.11,32,344/- cost of
Rs.1250/- imposed vide order on IA No.5, 6,
14 and 16. The petitioner is entitled for sum of
Rs.11,33,594/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs
Thirty Three Thousand Five Hundred Ninty
Four only).
After deducting cost of Rs.1,250/- and future
medical expenses to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-
balance sum of Rs.8,32,344/- shall carry
interest at 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of deposit.
The Respondent No.2 and 4 are jointly
and severally liable to pay compensation
amount to the petitioner. However, the
SCCH-24 22 MVC 6048/2023
respondent no.4 being the Insurer of the
offending vehicle is directed to deposit the
compensation along with interest within two
months from the date of award.
On deposit of the said amount and interest,
40% of compensation payable to the petitioner
shall be deposited in his name in any
nationalized bank of the choice of petitioner for
a period of 3 years and the remaining 60%
shall be released to the petitioner through E-
payment on proper identification.
Advocates’ fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then
pronounced by me in open court, on this the 17th day of July 2026.)
(ISHWAR S.M)
XXII Addl., SCJ & ACJM.,
Bengaluru.
SCCH-24 23 MVC 6048/2023
: ANNEXURE :
List of witnesses examined for petitioner:
P.W.1 : Imtiyaz Ali P.W.2 : Mahesh P.W.3 : S.Ramachandra
List of exhibited documents marked for petitioner:
Ex.P1 Certified copy of FIR with Complaint.
Ex.P2 Certified copy of Charge Sheet.
Ex.P3 Certified copy of Spot Mahazar.
Ex.P4 Certified copy of Notice u/Sec.133 of IMV
Act 2 in nos and reply given there on.
Ex.P5 Certified copy of order sheet in CC
NO.798-2023.
Ex.P6 True copy of Wound Certificate.
Ex.P7 Discharge Summary issued from Silicon
City hospital.
Ex.P8 Certified copy of IMV report.
Ex.P9 Certified copy of photographs of damaged
vehicles.
Ex.P10 Certified copy of the RC of petitioner.
Ex.P11 Certified copy of insurance policy.
Ex.P12 Certified copy of statement of the
witnesses.
Ex.P13 Medical Bills.
Ex.P14 Authorization Letter.
Ex.P15 Case sheet.
Ex.P16 OPD slip with calculated sheet.
Ex.P17 X-ray film. 1 in no.
SCCH-24 24 MVC 6048/2023
Ex.P18 Quotation for future medical expenses
issued from Divine Speciality hospital.
List of witnesses examined for the Respondents:
RW.1 Roshini
List of exhibited documents marked for the Respondents:
Ex.R1 Authorization Letter.
Ex.R2 Insurance Policy
XXII Addl., SCJ & ACJM.,
Bengaluru.
Digitally
signed by
ISHWAR S
ISHWAR S MUSALMARI
MUSALMARI Date:
2026.07.21
13:44:16
+0530
