Bangalore District Court
Shree Shirdi Sai Fuels vs Nandish on 3 October, 2025
KABC020298082023
BEFORE 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.6376/2023
Dated this 3rd day of October, 2025
Petitioner: Shree Shirdi Sai Fuels,
No.13/1, Singasandra,
Hosur Road, Bengaluru - 560 068,
Represented by its Proprietor,
Prathiba A @ Arikeri Prathiba,
Residing at No.26,
Yellappa Layout, Manipal County
Road, Singasandra,
Bengaluru - 560 068.
(Sri A. Dhananjaya, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents: 1. Nandish S/o Shivananjaiah,
Aged major,
Residing at No.9, 4th 'F' Cross,
4th Main Road, Maruthi Nagara,
Kamakshipalya,
2 MVC No.6376/2023
Bengaluru - 560 079.
(Owner of the Tempo Traveller
bearing Reg. No.KA-03-AE-3206)
(Sri D. M. Girish, Advocate)
2. Tata AIG General Insurance
Company Limited,
JP and Devi Jambukeshwari
Arcade, No.69, IInd Floor,
Millers Road, Bengaluru-560052.
(Insurer of the Tempo Traveller
bearing Reg. No.KA-03-AE-3206)
(Sri Kiran Pujar, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- from the respondents, for the damage caused to the car bearing No.KA-04-MY-5050 of the petitioner, in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : 3 MVC No.6376/2023
The petitioner is the owner of the car bearing Reg. No.KA-04-MY-5050, represented by its Proprietor Prathiba A. @ Arikeri Prathiba. On 15-08-2023 at about 6.30 p.m., the petitioner and her sister, mother and brother-in-law were proceeding in a car bearing Reg. No.KA-04-MY-5050 and the same was driven by her son by name Kaushik Jain, near Ganesha Temple, AECS Layout, 'B' Block, Singasandra, Bengaluru City. At that time, a Tempo Traveler bearing Reg. No.KA-03-AE-3208, driven by its driver with high speed, in rash and negligent manner, without observing traffic rules and regulations, came from behind and dashed against the car of the petitioner. Due to the said impact, the petitioner's car got badly damaged. Immediately after the accident, the car was shifted to Elite Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., wherein the damaged car was repaired. The said garage charged a sum of Rs.1,39,786/- for damaged car repair and taken nearly one month time for repair. Further, she has incurred Rs.60,000/- towards conveyance charges. The Hulimau 4 MVC No.6376/2023 Traffic Police have registered the case against the driver of the said Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-03-AE-3206 for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 of I.P.C. The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer 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.2,50,000/- with interest.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the respondents No.1 and 2 have appeared through their counsel. The respondent No.2 has filed its written statement. Whereas, the respondent No.1 did not choose to file his written statement.
4. The respondent No.2 in its written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has admitted the issuance of insurance policy in favour of respondent No.1, in respect of Tempo 5 MVC No.6376/2023 Traveler bearing No.KA-03-AE-3206 and its validity from 20.01.2021 to 19.01.2022. Further it has sought permission to seek protection under Section 147 and 150(2) of Motor Vehicles Act. It has contended that, the petition is bad for non compliance of provision under Sections 134(c) and 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-03-AE- 3206 was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and further was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving licence and vehicle was plying without valid permit. The owner of said vehicle has committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. Further it is contended that, the charge-sheet has been filed under Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act, as the driver of the Tempo Traveler bearing Reg. No.KA-03-AE-3206 was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident. Thereby the owner of the vehicle has committed breach of 6 MVC No.6376/2023 terms and conditions of the policy and provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. It has denied the damage sustained by the car and expenses incurred by the petitioner towards repair of said car. Further it is contended that, the petitioner is required to produce documents to show that, it has not claimed any compensation from its own insurer, under own damages claim. It has denied the occurrence and mode of accident and also actionable negligence of Tempo Traveler bearing Reg. No.KA-03-AE-3206, as mentioned in the claim petition. Further, it has sought for permission to contest even on behalf of respondent No.1 under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. For the above denials and contentions, it is prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, her 7 MVC No.6376/2023 Car bearing No.KA-04-MY-5050 was damaged in the road traffic accident alleged to have occurred on 15-08-2023 at about 6.30 p.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tempo Traveler bearing registration No.KA-03-AE-3206 ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom ?
3. What order or award ?
6. In order to prove its case, the petitioner has got examined its Proprietor as P.W.1 and got marked 15 documents as Ex.P.1 to 15. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has examined its representative/Senior Manager Legal as R.W.1 and got marked one document as Ex.R.1. The respondent No.1 has not adduced any evidence on his side.
8 MVC No.6376/2023
7. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the entire material placed on record.
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 15-08-2023 at about 6.30 p.m., when herself, her sister, mother and brother-in-law were proceeding in a car bearing Reg. No.KA-04-MY-5050, the same being driven by her son by name Kaushik Jain, near Ganesha Temple, AECS Layout, 'B' Block, Singasandra, Bengaluru City, at that time, the offending Tempo Traveler bearing Reg. No.KA-03-AE- 3208, driven by its driver with high speed, in rash and negligent manner, without observing traffic rules and 9 MVC No.6376/2023 regulations, came from behind and dashed against the car of the petitioner. Due to said impact, the petitioner's car was badly damaged and it was shifted to Elite Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., wherein it was repaired. The said garage charged a sum of Rs.1,39,786/- towards repair of damaged car and took nearly one month time for repair. Further it is contended that, she has incurred Rs.60,000/- towards conveyance charges.
10. In order to prove its case, the petitioner has got examined herself as P.W.1, by filing her examination-in- chief affidavit, wherein she has reiterated the entire averments made in the petition. In support of her oral evidence, the petitioner has got marked total 15 documents as Ex.P.1 to 15. Out of the said documents, Ex.P.1 is certified copy of F.I.R., Ex.P.2 is certified copy of first information statement, Ex.P.3 is certified copy of sketch, Ex.P.4 is certified copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P.5 is certified copy of Motor Vehicle Accident report, Ex.P.6 is certified copy of 10 MVC No.6376/2023 notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act, Ex.P.7 is certified copy of reply to notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act, Ex.P.8 is certified copy of order-sheet in Crime No.138/2023, Ex.P.9 is notarized copy of Aadhar card of Prathibha, Ex.P.10 is notarized copy of registration certificate, Ex.P.11 is certified copy of driving licence, Ex.P.12 are repair bills (total 3), Ex.P.13 is certified copy of charge-sheet, Ex.P.14 is vehicle repair bill and Ex.P.15 is GST certificate.
11. On meticulously going through the police documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 8 and 13, prima-facia it reveals that, the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-03-AE-3206 and dashing the same to ongoing car bearing No.KA-04-MY-5050 of the petitioner. Further it reveals that, due to said impact, the rear bumper, rear dickey door, tail lamps, indicators, rear wind screen glass broken and both side quarter panels damaged to the 11 MVC No.6376/2023 car bearing No.KA-04-MY-5050. The investigation officer in his final report/charge-sheet, which is marked as Ex.P.13, has clearly stated that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Tempo Traveler bearing Reg. No.KA-03-AE-3206 and dashing the same to the car bearing No.KA-04-MY-5050 of the petitioner, which has been damaged extensively. Further it is stated that, at the time of accident the accused/driver of offending Tempo Traveler had consumed alcohol and hence, he has been charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sec.279 of I.P.C. and Sec.185 of Motor Vehicles Act.
12. At the outset, is it pertinent to note that, in the present case, the date, time and place of accident, involvement of Tempo Traveler bearing Reg. No.KA-03-AE- 3206 in the alleged accident, issuance of insurance policy by the respondent No.2 in respect of said Tempo Traveler bearing Reg. No.KA-03-AE-3206 and its validity as on the 12 MVC No.6376/2023 date of accident, are not in dispute. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner has remained undisputed by the respondent No.1, who is owner of offending Tempo Traveler bearing Reg. No.KA-03- AE-3206, as he did not choose to file his written statement and contest the case of the petitioner. Whereas, the respondents No.2 has denied the above averred facts and circumstances of the accident and taken specific contention that, the alleged accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of petitioner's car bearing No.KA-04-MY-5050 and there was no fault on the part of the driver of Tempo Traveler bearing Reg. No.KA-03-AE-3206, But, the respondent No.2 has failed to prove the said contentions. Except the self serving statement of R.W.1, who is the representative/Senior Manager Legal of the respondent No.2 insurance company, there is no other corroborative oral or documentary evidence placed on record by the respondent No.2 to establish the above 13 MVC No.6376/2023 contentions. 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 driving of the driver of offending Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-03-AE-3206 and dashing the same to ongoing car bearing No.KA-04-MY-5050 of the petitioner and due to said impact the rare portion of petitioner's car is extensively damaged. Though, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has cross-examined P.W.1 in length, nothing worth has been brought out from her mouth, which creates doubt on the veracity of her evidence or which goes to show that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of petitioner's car bearing No.KA-04-MY-5050 or there was any contributory negligence on his part in the cause of accident.
13. Further, the Ex.P.3 sketch and Ex.P.4 spot mahazer also clearly speaks that, the said accident has taken place on the left side of 40 feet wide on Begur-Hosur road, near 14 MVC No.6376/2023 Ganesha Temple, AECS Layout, B Block, 2nd main road, Singasandra, Bengaluru City, due to dashing of offending Tempo Traveler bearing Reg. No.KA-03-AE-3206 to the ongoing car bearing No.KA-04-MY-5050 of the petitioner. Further, as per the Motor Vehicles Accident Report, which is marked as Ex.P.5, the accident is not caused due to any mechanical defects in the vehicles involved in the accident. When the accident has not taken place due to any mechanical defects in the vehicles involved in the accident and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of car bearing No.KA-04-MY-5050, then in the given facts and circumstances of the case, it can be presumed that the said accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Tempo Traveler bearing Reg. No.KA- 03-AE-3206. Further, the investigation officer in his Ex.P.13 final report/charge-sheet has clearly stated that, the alleged accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Tempo Traveler bearing Reg. 15 MVC No.6376/2023 No.KA-03-AE-3206 and dashing the same to the car bearing No.KA-04-MY-5050. Further he has clearly stated that, in the said accident the car bearing No.KA-04-MY-5050 has been damaged extensively and at the time of accident the accused/driver of offending Tempo Traveler had consumed alcohol. Admittedly, the said final report/charge-sheet has not been challenged either by the owner or the driver of said vehicle. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the final report filed by the investigation officer and other police records, regarding the date, time and place of accident, involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle and damages caused to the petitioner's car in the said accident.
14. The Ex.P.5 Motor Vehicle Accident Report clearly speaks that, the back portion of petitioner's car bearing No.KA-04-MY-5050 is extensively damaged in the said accident. As per the said report, the rear bumper, rear 16 MVC No.6376/2023 dickey door, tail lamps, indicators, rear wind screen glass broken and both side quarter panels of the said car are damaged. The Ex.P.10 repair bills (total 3) and Ex.P.14 vehicle repair bill are also clear evident of the above mentioned damage caused to the back portion of the car bearing No.KA-04-MY-5050. On the other hand, there is no rebuttal evidence placed on record by the respondent No.2 to show that, the said documents are false documents. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner, with respect to cause of accident and damage caused to petitioner's car bearing No.KA-04-MY-5050.
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 17 MVC No.6376/2023 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 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 ratio laid down 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, her car bearing No.KA-04-MY-5050 was damaged in a motor vehicle accident, occurred on 15- 08-2023 at about 6.30 p.m., on Begur-Hosur road, near Ganesha Temple, AECS Layout, B Block, 2nd main road, 18 MVC No.6376/2023 Singasandra, Bengaluru City, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tempo Traveler bearing Reg. No. KA- 03-AE-3206. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in Affirmative.
18. Issue No.2: While answering above issue this Court has come to conclusion that, the petitioner has successfully proved that, her car bearing No.KA-04-MY-5050 was damaged in the road traffic accident, occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-03-AE-3206. As per the Ex.P.5 Motor Vehicle Accident Report, the rear bumper, rear dickey door, tail lamps, indicators, rear wind screen glass broken and both side quarter panels of the said car bearing No.KA-04- MY-5050 are damaged in the said accident. The Ex.P.12 repair bills (total 3) and Ex.P.14 vehicle repair bill are also clear evident of above stated damage to the car bearing No.KA-04-MY-5050. The oral evidence of P.W.1 is fully corroborated by the documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner.
19 MVC No.6376/2023
19. As per Ex.P.14 vehicle repair bill, the total expenses incurred for repair of damage caused to the car bearing No. No.KA-04-MY-5050 is Rs.1,39,786/-. As per Ex.P.12 receipts (total 3 in Nos) an amount of Rs.1,39,786/- is paid by the petitioner. There is no rebuttal evidence placed on record by the respondents to disbelieve the above oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner. Therefore, in such circumstances, there is no impediment to hold that, the petitioner has spent Rs.1,39,786/- towards the repair of damages' caused to his car bearing No. No.KA-04- MY-5050. Accordingly, it is held that, the respondents are liable to compensate the said amount of Rs.1,39,786/- to the petitioner.
20. With regard to other alleged expenses incurred by the petitioner towards conveyance, there is no cogent and corroborative evidence placed on record by the petitioner, to show that, she has expended Rs.60,000/- towards 20 MVC No.6376/2023 conveyance charges. Further, there is absolutely no evidence placed on record to show that, due to non usage of said vehicle during laid off period the petitioner has suffered any loss of income. But, admittedly, the said car was taken to the garage of Elite Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru on 18-08-2023 and after repair the same was delivered to the petitioner on 15-09-2023. It remained unused for about 01 month 02 days. Though there is no evidence placed on record by the petitioner to show that, she has suffered any loss of income during the laid off period of her car, definitely it would have caused some inconvenience and mental agony to the petitioner and she might have spent some amount towards towing charges or shifting the said vehicle from the place of accident to the garage for repair. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, the respondents are liable to compensate for the inconvenience and mental agony caused to the petitioner due to non-availability of her car for usage during the repair 21 MVC No.6376/2023 period and towards charges of shifting the said vehicle from the place of accident to the garage for repair. Hence, directing the respondents to pay Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, it is held that, the respondents are liable to pay total compensation of Rs.1,69,786/- to the petitioner.
21. Liability: Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA- 03-AE-3206. Further, as per the true copy of reply given by the owner of offending vehicle, to the notice issued by the investigation officer under Sec.133 of Motor Vehicles Act, which is marked as Ex.P.7, the driver of offending vehicle by name Murugeshan K. S/o Kudiyappan was holding valid and effective driving licence bearing No.TN 2420110000358 to drive the offending vehicle. The said licence was valid from 25-01-2011 to 24-01-2031 in respect of LMV (NT) vehicle and valid from 25-01-2011 till 23-03-2027 in respect of LMV (TR) 22 MVC No.6376/2023 vehicle. Further, the offending Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-03-AE-3206 was insured by respondent No.2 insurance company, vide Policy No.63000294570000, valid from 10-10-2022 to 09-10-2023. The said policy was valid as on the date of accident i.e. 15-08-2023. No doubt, as per Ex.P.13, the accused/driver of offending Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-03-AE-3206 had consumed alcohol and as such he has been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sec.279 of I.P.C., and Sec.185 of Motor Vehicles Act. But, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that, the respondent No.1/owner of offending vehicle was having knowledge that, his driver had consumed alcohol at the time of accident and he had consciously entrusted his vehicle to him. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that, there is no evidence on record to show that, there is any breach of terms and conditions of said policy committed by the respondent No.1. Further, the evidence available on record 23 MVC No.6376/2023 clearly establishes that, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle bearing No.KA-03-AE-3206, the said accident has taken place and the car bearing No. KA-04-MY-5050 belonging to the petitioner was damaged in the said accident. In such circumstances, the respondent No.1 being the owner of said vehicle is vicariously liable to compensate for the damage caused to the vehicle of petitioner. The respondent No.2 being the insurer of the vehicle has to indemnify the respondent No.1. 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.2 to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, for the above stated reasons, holding that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,69,786/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization, from the respondent No.2, I answer Issue No.2 in Partly Affirmative.
24 MVC No.6376/2023
22. Issue No.3: In view of the above findings, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,69,786/- (Rupees one lakh sixty nine thousand seven hundred and eighty six only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., 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 said amount is fastened on respondent No.2- Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order. 25 MVC No.6376/2023
The entire compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through e-payment on proper identification and verification.
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 this the 3 rd day of October, 2025) (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
P.W.1: Prathiba A. @ Arikeri Prathiba W/o Hardesh Kumar Documents marked on behalf of petitioner:
Ex.P.1: Certified copy of F.I.R.
Ex.P.2: Certified copy of First Information
Statement
Ex.P.3: Certified copy of Spot Sketch
Ex.P.4: Certified copy of Spot Mahazar
26 MVC No.6376/2023
Ex.P.5: Certified copy of M.V.A. Report
Ex.P.6: Certified copy of Notice under Section 133
of Motor Vehicles Act
Ex.P.7: Certified copy of Reply to Notice under
Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act
Ex.P.8: Certified copy of Order Sheet in Crime
No.138/2023
Ex.P.9: Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of Prathibha
Ex.P.10: Notarized copy of Registration Certificate Ex.P.11: Notarized copy of Driving Licence Ex.P.12: Repair Bills (total 3) of Rs.1,39,786/- Ex.P.13: Certified copy of Charge-sheet Ex.P.14: Vehicle Repair Bill Ex.P.15: GST Certificate Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
R.W.1: Gireesha M. S/o Mahadevappa Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1: True copy of Insurance Policy
(Mohammed Yunus Athani)
Member, MACT, Bengaluru.