Bangalore District Court
Mohammed Musthaqeem P K vs New India Ass Co Ltd on 16 April, 2026
KABC020069902025
IN THE COURT OF 10th ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES AND
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
AT: BENGALURU
(SCCH-16)
Present: Sri. Mohammed Yunus Athani
B.A.,LL.B.,
X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.1073/2025
Dated this 16th day of April, 2026
Petitioner: P.K. Mohammed Musthaqeem S/o P.K.
Mohammed Ghouse,
Aged about 41 years,
R/at No.46-9, Ward No.12, 7th Cross,
Near ST Joseph School, Rajivgandhi
Nagar, 7th Layout, HSR Layout,
Bengaluru South, Bengaluru - 560 102.
(Sri C. K. Lokesh, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents: 1. The New India Ass. Co. Ltd.,
3rd Party Claims Hub,
No.9/2, Mahalakshmi Chambers,
M.G. Road, Bengaluru - 01.
2 MVC No.1073/2025
(The insurer of the motorcycle
bearing Reg. No.KA-42-EH-1547)
(Sri T. Ramesh, Advocate)
2. Nagaraju H. since deceased rep.
by his LR's
2(a). Sharadamma W/o Late
Nagaraju,
2(b). Yashwanth Kumar K.N. S/o Late
Nagaraju,
Both are R/at SRS Betta,
Kailancha Hobli, Avverahalli Post,
Ram Avverahalli, Bengaluru
North, Bengaluru - 562 159.
(The owner of the motorcycle
bearing Reg. No.KA-42-EH-1547)
(Sri P. Suresh, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- from
the respondents, for the grievous injuries sustained by the
petitioner in a road traffic accident.
3 MVC No.1073/2025
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 24-01-2025 at about 6.30 p.m., the petitioner was
riding the motorcycle bearing No.KA-51-HA-7307, slowly,
cautiously, by observing all the traffic rules and norms.
When he reached near Bommasandra Industrial Area, near
Fine Components, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru
District. At that time the rider of motorcycle bearing Reg.
No.KA-42-EH-1547, rode the same with high speed, in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle
of the petitioner from behind. Due to the said impact, the
petitioner has fell down on the road and sustained grievous
injuries all over his body. Immediately after the accident, he
was shifted to St. John’s Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he
took treatment as an in-patient. Earlier to the accident, he
was working as Dispatch In-charge at Fine Components and
Tools Pvt. Ltd., and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. But,
due to the accidental injuries, he has become permanently
disabled and thereby lost his earning capacity. The
4 MVC No.1073/2025Hebbagodi Police have registered the case against the rider
of the said motorcycle for the offences punishable under
Section 281 and 125(b) of BNS. The respondent No.1 is the
insurer and respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending
vehicle. Hence, they are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed to
allow the petition and award compensation of
Rs.18,00,000/- with interest.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the
respondents No.1 and 2 have appeared through their
counsel. The respondent No.1 has filed its written
statement. Whereas, the respondent No.2(a) and (b) did not
choose to file their written statement.
4. The respondent No.1 in its written statement has
denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has
admitted the issuance of insurance policy bearing
No.67140131240900001470 in respect of motorcycle bearing
5 MVC No.1073/2025
No.KA-42-EH-1547 and its validity from 22-07-2024 to 21-07-
2029, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It
seeks protection under Section 147 and 149(2) of Motor
Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the petition is bad
for non-compliance of provision under Section 134(c) and
158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the
motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-42-EH-1547 was not at all
involved in the alleged accident and the petitioner himself
was negligence in causing the accident. Under these
circumstances the claim petition is liable to be dismissed for
one’s own negligence. Further it is contended that, the
petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary
parties, namely the rider of motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-
42-EH-1547. In fact the rider of the said motorcycle is also
proper and necessary party for the adjudication of the
present claim petition. Further it is contended that, the
petitioner was not wearing helmet as on the date of
accident. As such, the petitioner has violated Sec.129 of the
6 MVC No.1073/2025
Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the rider of
the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-42-EH-1547 was not
holding valid and effective driving licence, as on the date of
accident. The insured knowinglyfully well that his driver did
not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the
insured vehicle, has entrusted the said vehicle to him to
driver and thereby he has committed breach of terms and
conditions of the policy. Further, the said vehicle was not
having valid registration certificate and fitness certificate.
Hence, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation
to the petitioner. It has denied the age, income and
avocation of the petitioner, injuries sustained, medical
expenses incurred and treatment taken by him. Further, it
has sought for permission to contest even on behalf of
respondent No.2, as per Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles
Act. The compensation claimed is highly excessive and
exorbitant. For the above denials and contentions, it is
prayed to dismiss the petition.
7 MVC No.1073/2025
5. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the
following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he has
sustained grievous injuries in the road
traffic accident, alleged to have occurred
on 24-01-2025 at about 6.30 p.m., near
Bommasandra Industrial Area, Fine
Components, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru, due to the rash and negligent
riding of the rider of the motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-42-EH-1547 ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the quantum
and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?
8 MVC No.1073/2025
6. In order to prove his case, the petitioner has got
examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 14 documents
as Ex.P.1 to 14. Further, he has got examined one more
witness namely Dr. Nagaraj B.N., as P.W.2. On the other
hand, the respondent No.1 has examined its
representative/Assistant as R.W.1 and got marked 4
documents as Ex.R.1 to 4. Whereas, the respondent No.2(a)
and (b) have not adduced any evidence on their behalf.
7. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and
perused the entire material available on record. In support
of his arguments, the learned counsel for respondent No.1
has relied on the following decisions:
i) Sri Subash V/s The New India Assurance Co.
Ltd., rep. by its Manager and others, reported in
ILR 2010 KAR 2439.
ii) Sri Nandeesh K. V/s United India Insurance Co.
Ltd., and another, in MFA No.2155/2014 (MV),
judgment dated 23-06-2020.
9 MVC No.1073/2025
iii) Daivshala and others V/s Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd., and another, in Civil Appeal No.6986/2015
(@ Special Leave Petition © No.16573/2012),
judgment dated 28-07-2025.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative
Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative
Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the
following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioner that, on
24-01-2025 at about 6.30 p.m., when he was riding the
motorcycle bearing No.KA-51-HA-7307, near Bommasandra
Industrial Area, Fine Components, Attibele Hobli, Anekal
Taluk, Bengaluru District, at that time the rider of the
motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-42-EH-1547 rode the same
with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and
10 MVC No.1073/2025
dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner from
behind. Due to the said impact, the petitioner has fell down
on the road and sustained grievous injuries all over his
body. Further it is contended that, earlier to the accident, he
was working as Dispatch In-charge at Fine Components and
Tools Pvt. Ltd., and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. But,
due to the accidental injuries, he has become permanently
disabled and thereby lost his earning capacity.
10. In order to prove his case, the petitioner has
examined himself as P.W.1 by filing examination-in-chief
affidavit, wherein he has reiterated the entire averments
made in the petition. Further, in support of his oral
evidence, the petitioner has got marked total 14 documents
as Ex.P.1 to 14. Out of the said documents, Ex.P.1 is true
copy of F.I.R., Ex.P.2 is true copy of first information
statement, Ex.P.3 is true copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P.4 is
true copy of Motor Vehicle Accident report, Ex.P.5 is true
copy of wound certificate, Ex.P.6 is true copy of charge-
11 MVC No.1073/2025
sheet, Ex.P.7 is notarized copy of Aadhar card, Ex.P.8 is
notarized copy of driving licence of petitioner, Ex.P.9 is
discharge summary, Ex.P.10 is salary slip for the month of
November-2024, December-2024 and January-2025, Ex.P.11
is certificate under Section 63(4) of BSA, Ex.P.12 is true copy
of bank account statement, Ex.P.13 is clinical note and
Ex.P.14 is x-ray.
11. On meticulously going through the above police
documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 6, prima-facia it reveals
that, the accident in question has taken place due to rash
and negligent riding of the rider of offending motorcycle
bearing Reg. No.KA-42-EH-1547 and dashing the same to
ongoing motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-51-HA-7307 of the
petitioner from behind. Due to said impact the petitioner
has fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries all
over the body. The investigation officer in his final report,
marked as Ex.P.6, has clearly stated that, the said accident
has taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the
12 MVC No.1073/2025
rider of offending motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-42-EH-
1547.
12. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that, in the
present case, the date, time and place of accident, issuance
of insurance policy by the respondent No.1 in respect of
motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-42-EH-1547 and its validity
as on the date of accident, are not in dispute. Further, the
oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the
petitioner has remained undisputed by the owner of
offending vehicle/Respondent No.2(a) and (b), as they did
not choose to appear and contest the case of the petitioner.
Whereas, the respondent No.1 insurance company has
specifically denied the above averred facts and
circumstances of the accident and taken specific defence
that, the alleged accident has taken place solely due to rash
and negligent riding of the petitioner/rider of the
motorcycle bearing No.KA-51-HA-7307 and there was no
negligence on the part of the rider of motorcycle bearing
13 MVC No.1073/2025
Reg. No.KA-42-EH-1547. Further it has contended that, the
offending car was not at all involved in the alleged accident.
But, the respondents No.1 has failed to establish the said
contentions. Except the self serving statements of the
R.W.1, who is the representative/Assistant of respondent
No.1 insurance company, there is no other corroborative
oral or documentary evidence placed on record by the
respondent No.1 to show that, the said accident has taken
place solely due to the negligence of the petitioner himself
and there was no negligence on the part of the rider of
motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-42-EH-1547. On the other
hand, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record
by the petitioner clearly establishes that, the said accident
has taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the
rider of offending motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-42-EH-
1547 and dashing the same to ongoing motorcycle bearing
No.KA-51-HA-7307 of the petitioner from behind. Though,
the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has cross-
14 MVC No.1073/2025
examined P.W.1 in length, nothing worth has been elicited
from his mouth which creates doubt on the veracity of his
evidence or which goes to show that, the said accident has
taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the
petitioner/rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-51-
HA-7307 himself or there was any contributory negligence
on his part in the cause of accident.
13. Further, the Ex.P.3 spot mahazar also clearly speaks
that, the said accident has taken place on the left side of 24
feet wide on Tirupalya Village towards Delta Company road,
near Bommasandra Industrial Area, Attibele Hobli, Anekal
Taluk, Bengaluru District, in between offending motorcycle
bearing Reg. No.KA-42-EH-1547 and ongoing motorcycle
bearing Reg. No.KA-51-HA-7307 of the petitioner. As per the
Motor Vehicle Accident Report, which is marked as Ex.P.4,
the accident has not taken place due to any mechanical
defects in the vehicles involved in the accident. When the
accident was not caused due to any mechanical defects in
15 MVC No.1073/2025
the vehicles involved in the accident and there was no
negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, then
in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it can be
presumed that, the said accident had occurred due to rash
and negligent riding of the rider of offending motorcycle
bearing Reg. No.KA-42-EH-1547. Further, the investigation
officer in his final report, marked as Ex.P.6 has clearly stated
that, the said accident is caused due to rash and negligent
riding of the rider of offending motorcycle bearing Reg.
No.KA-42-EH-1547. Admittedly, the said final report/charge-
sheet has not been challenged by the owner or the rider of
offending vehicle. In such circumstances, there is no
impediment to believe the final report of the investigation
officer and other police records, regarding the date, time
and place of accident, involvement of the offending vehicle,
rash and negligent riding of the rider of offending vehicle
and injuries caused to the petitioner in the said accident.
16 MVC No.1073/2025
14. Further, on meticulously going through the Ex.P.5
wound certificate, Ex.P.9 discharge summary, Ex.P.13
clinical note and Ex.P.14 x-ray, it clearly reveals that, the
petitioner has suffered grievous injuries in the road traffic
accident. The petitioner has sustained left distal fibula
fracture + distal 1/3rd tibia shaft fracture. The P.W.2, who is
the doctor who has examined the petitioner for the
purpose of assessment of disability, has clearly deposed in
his evidence that, the petitioner has sustained above
injuries in the road traffic accident. Though, the learned
counsel for respondent No.1 has cross-examined P.W.2 in
length, nothing worth has been brought out from his
mouth, which creates doubt on the veracity of his evidence.
On the other hand, there is no contrary or rebuttal evidence
on record to disbelieve the said medical records of the
petitioner. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the oral
and documentary evidence placed on record by the
petitioner. Therefore, in such circumstances and in the light
17 MVC No.1073/2025
of above observations, it can safely be held that, the
respondents have failed to rebut the oral and documentary
evidence placed on record by the petitioner regarding rash
and negligent riding of the rider of offending motorcycle
bearing Reg. No.KA-42-EH-1547 and injuries sustained by
the petitioner in the said accident.
15. Further, it is well settled principle of law that, in a case
relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are not
required to prove the case as required to be done in a
criminal trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Parameshwari V/s Amir Chand and others, reported in
(2011) 11 SCC 635, has clearly held that, “in a road accident
claim cases the strict principle of proof in a criminal case
are not required.”
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bimla Devi
and others V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation
and others, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 513, has clearly held
18 MVC No.1073/2025
that, “in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the
claimants are merely required to establish their case on
touch stone of preponderance of probability and the
standard of proof on beyond reasonable doubt could not be
applied.”
17. Therefore, in the light of observations made in the
above cited decisions and for the above stated reasons, this
Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioner has
successfully proved that, he has sustained grievous injuries
in a motor vehicle accident, occurred on 24-01-2025 at
about 6.30 p.m., on Tirupalya Village towards Delta
Company road, near Bommasandra Industrial Area, Attibele
Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District, due to rash and
negligent riding of the rider of offending motorcycle
bearing Reg. No.KA-42-EH-1547. Hence, I answer Issue No.1
in Affirmative.
19 MVC No.1073/2025
18. Issue No.2: While answering the above issue this
Court has come to conclusion that, the accident in question
has occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider
of offending motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-42-EH-1547
and the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the
said accident. The medical records placed on record clearly
speaks that, the petitioner has sustained left distal fibula
fracture + distal 1/3rd tibia shaft fracture and for the said
injuries he has undergone surgery. Therefore, this Court is
of the further opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation under various heads. The damages are to be
assessed under two heads i.e. pecuniary damages, such as
medical treatment, attendants, transport, actual loss of
earning, future loss of earning etc., and non-pecuniary
damages, such as mental and physical shock, loss of
amenities, loss of expectation of life, loss of prospects of
marriage etc. The petitioner is entitled for compensation
under the following heads:
20 MVC No.1073/2025
19. Towards loss of future income: In order to
determine the compensation towards loss of future income,
the age, monthly income and disability of the petitioner are
to be determined. To prove his age, the petitioner has
produced the notarised copy of his Aadhar card and driving
licence, which are marked as Ex.P.7 and 8. As per Ex.P.7 and
8, the date of birth of the petitioner is 10-11-1983. The
accident has taken place on 24-01-2025 at about 6:30 p.m.
This clearly goes to show that, the age of the petitioner as
on the date of accident was 41 years. Further, the P.W.2,
who is the doctor who has examined the petitioner for the
purpose of assessment of disability, has clearly deposed in
his examination-in-chief affidavit that, on clinical
examination he found that, the petitioner has suffered left
distal fibula fracture + distal 1/3rd tibia shaft fracture.
Further he has deposed that, on clinical and radiological
examination of injuries sustained by the petitioner he found
that, the petitioner has suffered permanent physical
21 MVC No.1073/2025
disability to the extent of 42% to the left lower limb and 14%
permanent physical disability to the whole body. Further,
the Ex.P.5 wound certificate, Ex.P.9 discharge summary,
Ex.P.13 clinical note and Ex.P.14 x-ray clearly speaks that,
the petitioner has suffered the above stated injuries and for
the said injuries he has undergone surgery. The P.W.2 has
clearly denied the suggestions made to him that, the
petitioner has not suffered any disability and he has
exaggerated the percentage of disability. Further he has
stated that, the petitioner requires to undergo one more
surgery for removal of implants. This clearly goes to show
that, the disability has been assessed before the completion
of full treatment to the petitioner. As per the gazette
notification issued by the Ministry of Social Justice of
Government of India, the disability should be assessed after
completion of treatment. If the disability had been assessed
after future surgery, perhaps there would have been
reduction in the percentage of the disability. Further, it is
22 MVC No.1073/2025
pertinent to note that, the P.W.2 has deposed in his
evidence that, the accident has occurred on 24-01-2025 and
he has assessed the disability to the petitioner on 20-12-
2025, which is after lapse of ten months from the date of
injuries caused to the petitioner. Further, it is pertinent to
note that, the P.W.2 has clearly admitted in his cross-
examination that, fractures are united, hip joint movement
and muscle power are normal and he has not produced
radiological report in support of his assessment. Further he
has admitted that, the range of movement will vary after
removal of implants, the petitioner can perform the day to
day activities and continue his avocation with some
difficulties. Further he has clearly stated that, he has
assessed only physical disability and not functional
disability. Therefore, in such circumstances and taking into
consideration the age of the petitioner, injuries sustained,
avocation of the petitioner, duration of treatment and oral
and documentary evidence available on record, this Court is
23 MVC No.1073/2025
of the opinion that, considering the physical disability of
12% to the whole body of the petitioner would be justified.
Hence, in the instant case the disability of 12% to the whole
body of the petitioner is considered.
20. The petitioner has deposed in his evidence that,
before accident he was working as Dispatch In-charge at
Fine Components and Tools Pvt. Ltd., and was earning
Rs.30,000/- per month. Further he has deposed that, due to
grievous injuries suffered in the said accident he is unable
to do his work. The respondent No.1 has specifically denied
the same. In such circumstances, the burden was on the
petitioner to prove his avocation and income. To
substantiate the same, he has produced his salary slips for
the month of November-2024, December-2024 and January-
2025 and Bank account statement, which are marked as
Ex.P.10 & 12. But, the petitioner has not examined the
author of Ex.P.10. Further, admittedly the Ex.P.10 salary
slips do not contain seal and signature of the alleged
24 MVC No.1073/2025
company. Therefore, in such circumstances, there is no
other option before this Court, except to hold that, the
petitioner has failed to prove his avocation and income as
on the date of accident, through cogent and corroborative
evidence and consider the notional income as per the
guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
The accident has taken place in the year 2025. Therefore,
the notional income of the petitioner is considered at
Rs.17,000/- per month and the annual income of the
petitioner at Rs.2,04,000/-.
21. As per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma
and others V/s Delhi Transport Corporation and
another, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the appropriate
multiplier for a person whose is aged about 41 years is 14.
Therefore, the total loss of future income to the petitioner is
held at, total annual income X disability/100 X multiplier =
Rs.2,04,000 X 12/100 X 14 =Rs.3,42,720/-.
25 MVC No.1073/2025
22. Medical expenses: The petitioner has deposed that,
he has incurred expenses of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical,
conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charge etc.
In order to prove the same, he has not produced any
medical bills. Further he has clearly admitted in his cross-
examination that, his medical expenses have been paid by
the ICICI Insurance Company. Therefore, the petitioner is
not entitled for any compensation under the head of
medical expenses.
23. Pain and sufferings: In the present case, the
petitioner has sustained grievous injuries i.e. left distal
fibula fracture + distal 1/3rd tibia shaft fracture. As per
Ex.P.9 discharge summary, the petitioner has taken
treatment as in-patient for 8 days from 24-01-2025 to 31-01-
2025, in St. John’s Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru.
Further, as per P.W.2, the said injuries have caused physical
disability to the petitioner. In such circumstances, certainly
the petitioner would have suffered pain and sufferings.
26 MVC No.1073/2025
Therefore, taking into consideration the injuries sustained
and disability suffered by the petitioner, this Court is of the
opinion that, awarding compensation amount of
Rs.60,000/- to the petitioner towards pain and sufferings
would be justified and it will meet the ends of justice.
24. Attendant charges: As per Ex.P.9 discharge
summary, the petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient
for 8 days in St. John’s Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru.
He might have spent considerable amount towards
attendant charges during that period. Therefore,
compensation of Rs.1000 x 8 = Rs.8,000/- is awarded
towards the attendant charges.
25. Food and nourishment: As per Ex.P.9 discharge
summary, the petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient
for 8 days in St. John’s Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru.
He might have spent considerable amount towards food
and nourishment during that period. Therefore,
27 MVC No.1073/2025
compensation of Rs.800 x 8 = Rs.6,400/- is awarded towards
food and nourishment charges.
26. Conveyance expenses: The petitioner is the resident
of Rajivgandhi Nagar, 7th Layout, HSR Layout, Bengaluru
South, the accident has taken place on Tirupalya Village
towards Delta Company road, near Bommasandra
Industrial Area, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru
District and the petitioner has taken treatment at St. John’s
Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru. Taking into
consideration the distance in between the above places,
compensation of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards
conveyance.
27. Loss of income during treatment period: The
petitioner has taken treatment for 8 days as in-patient at St.
John’s Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru, for the grievous
injury sustained by him. He might have taken rest for about
2 months and lost his income for the said period. Therefore,
28 MVC No.1073/2025
compensation of Rs.17,000 x 2 = Rs.34,000/- is awarded
towards loss of income during treatment period.
28. Loss of amenities: It is evident from the documents
placed on record that, as on the date of accident the age of
the petitioner was 41 years and unfortunately he has
suffered left distal fibula fracture + distal 1/3rd tibia shaft
fracture. Further, he has suffered permanent disability to
the extent of 12% to the whole body. Therefore, this Court
is of the opinion that, awarding compensation of
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities would be just and
reasonable.
29. Future medical expenses: The P.W.2 has clearly
deposed in his evidence that, the petitioner needs to
undergo one more surgery for removal of implants, the
estimate of this surgery is around Rs.60,000/-. But,
admittedly the P.W.2 has not issued estimation of cost for
the said surgery. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that,
29 MVC No.1073/2025
awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards future
medical expenses would be just and reasonable.
30. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation under different heads as follows:
1. Loss of future income Rs. 3,42,720-00
2. Medical expenses Nil
3. Pain and sufferings 60,000-00
4. Attendant charges 8,000-00
5. Food and nourishment 6,400-00
6. Conveyance expenses 10,000-00
7. Loss of income during 34,000-00
treatment period
8. Loss of amenities 40,000-00
9. Future medical expenses 20,000-00
Total Rs. 5,21,120-00In all, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.5,21,120/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
(excluding interest on future medical expenses of
Rs.20,000/-), from the date of petition till its realization.
30 MVC No.1073/2025
31. Liability: Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the
respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the
owner of the offending vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-42-EH-
1547. Further, as per Ex.R.2 insurance policy issued by the
respondent No.1 bearing No.67140131240900001470, in
respect of offending motorcycle, was valid for own damage
cover from 22-07-2024 to 21-07-2025 and it was valid for
third party cover from 22-07-2024 to 21-07-2029. As such,
the insurance policy issued by the respondent No.1 in
respect of offending vehicle was valid as on the date of
accident i.e. 24-01-2025. There is no evidence on record to
show that, there is any breach of terms and conditions of
the insurance policy by the insured/respondent No.2.
Further, the evidence placed on record by the petitioner
clearly establishes that, due to rash and negligent riding of
the rider of offending vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-42-EH-
1547 the accident in question has taken place. In such
circumstances, the respondent No.2 being the owner of
31 MVC No.1073/2025
said vehicle is vicariously liable to compensate for the
damage caused by the said vehicle. The respondent No.1
being the insurer of the vehicle has to indemnify the
respondent No.2. Therefore, the respondent No.1 and 2 are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the
petitioner. However, the primary liability is on the
respondent No.1 to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
Therefore, for the above stated reasons, holding that, the
petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,21,120/-,
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum (excluding
interest on future medical expenses of Rs.20,000/-), from
the date of petition till its realization, from the respondent
No.1, I answer Issue No.2 in Partly Affirmative.
32. Issue No.3: In view of the above findings, I proceed to
pass the following order:
ORDER
The petition is partly allowed with
costs.
32 MVC No.1073/2025
The petitioner is entitled to
compensation of Rs.5,21,120/- (Rupees
five lakh twenty one thousand one
hundred and twenty only), with interest
at the rate of 6% p.a., (excluding
interest on future medical expenses of
Rs.20,000/-), from the date of petition
till realisation.
The respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly
and severally liable to pay the above
compensation amount to the
petitioner. However, the primary
liability to pay the compensation
amount is fastened on respondent No.1
– Insurance Company and it is directed
to pay the compensation amount
within two months from the date of this
order.
The entire compensation amount
with proportionate interest shall be
released in favour of the petitioner
through e-payment on proper
identification and verification.
33 MVC No.1073/2025
Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on computer, typed by him,
corrected and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 16 th day of April,
2026).
(Mohammed Yunus Athani)
Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
P.W.1: P.K. Mohammed Musthaqeem S/o P.K.
Mohammed Ghouse
P.W.2: Dr. Nagaraj B.N. S/o Late B.K.N. SwamyDocuments marked on behalf of petitioner:
Ex.P.1: True copy of F.I.R.
Ex.P.2: True copy of First Information Statement
Ex.P.3: True copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.4: True copy of M.V.A. Report
Ex.P.5: True copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.6: True copy of Charge-sheet
Ex.P.7: Notarized copy of Aadhar Card
Ex.P.8: Notarized copy of Driving Licence of
petitioner
Ex.P.9: Discharge Summary
34 MVC No.1073/2025
Ex.P.10: Salary Slip for the Month of November-2024,
December-2024 and January-2025
Ex.P.11: Certificate U/Sec. 63(4) of BSA
Ex.P.12: True copy of Bank Account Statement
Ex.P.13: Clinical Note
Ex.P.14: X-rayWitnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
R.W.1: Chetan S. S/o Sham Singh
Documents marked on behalf of respondents:
Ex.R.1: Authorization Letter
Ex.R.2: True copy of Insurance Policy
Ex.R.3: Notice issued to owner of insured vehicle
dated 20-03-2025
Ex.R.4: Postal Receipt
(Mohammed Yunus Athani)
Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
