Bangalore District Court
Ranganatha vs Slv Enterprises on 5 August, 2025
KABC020325872023
IN THE COURT OF XII ADDL. SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
(SCCH-08)
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST - 2025
PRESENT: Smt. Kannika M.S.
M.A. LL.B,
XII ADDL. SCJ & ACJM,
MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU.
MVC No.6842/2023
Petitioners : 1. Sri Ranganatha,
S/o. Mayanna,
Aged about 46 years,
2. Smt. Rathnamma,
W/o. Shivashankarappa,
Aged about 49 years.
Both are Residing at:
Mahimapura,
Kuluvanahalli Post,
Thyamagondlu Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District.
(By Sri Manjappa, advocate)
V/s.
Respondents : 1) SLV Enterprises,
Prop. Narayanappa G.,
K.G. Krishnarajapura,
T. Begur post,
Kasaba Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District
(By Sri A. Devaraju, advocate)
SCCH-08 2 MVC No.6842/2023
2) The Manager,
ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.,
No.121, 9th Floor,
Estate Building,
Dickson Road,
Bengaluru-1.
Road Roller bearing Reg. No.
KA-52-N-1715
Policy No.3008/279691686/00/000
covering from 09.02.2023 to 08.02.2024
(By Sri M.E. Madhu Sudhan, advocate)
3) Sri Chandrashekar K.G.,
S/o. Ganeshmurthy,
No.75, Kuluvanahalli,
Sompura Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District.
(By Sri. Rathan Kumar K.N., advocate)
4) The Manager,
Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.,
5th Floor, Century Building,
M.G. Road, Bengaluru-01
(Auto bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AB-8938
Policy No.14172232339000046
Valid from 29.09.2023 to 28.09.2024)
(By Sri H.K. Ramamurthy, advocate)
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed under Sec.166 of M.V Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death caused in a Road Traffic accident.
SCCH-08 3 MVC No.6842/20232. Brief case of the petitioner in the nutshell:
It is the case of the petitioners that, on 30.09.2023 at about 11.30 a.m., when the deceased Mamatha was traveling in an Auto bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AB-8938, near Thonachenakuppe Bridge, Tumkur-Bengaluru NH-48 Road, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, at that time, the driver of Road Roller bearing Reg. No.KA-52-N-1715 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly came from right side towards left side and stopped it in the middle of the road without giving any signal or indicator, hence the driver of the auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Road Roller. Consequently, the deceased sustained grievous in injuries all over the body.
Thereafter, immediately after the accident, she was shifted to Harsha Hospital at Nelamangala wherein first aid treatment was given and then shifted to Sparsha Hospital, Nelamanagala, wherein she succumbed to the injuries while taking treatment. Further submitted that the postmortem was conducted by the doctor attached to Government Hospital at Nelamangala and corpse was handed over to the family members. The petitioners have spent Rs.5,00,000/- towards Medical Expenses, Conveyance, Death Ceremony, Obsequies and etc. It is further urged that deceased Mamatha was head of the family and out of her earnings, the entire family was maintaining, she was hale and healthy at the time of accident and because of death of deceased the petitioners have suffered SCCH-08 4 MVC No.6842/2023 both financially and emotionally. It is contended that the accident happened because of rash and negligent driving of the drivers of Road Roller and Auto and as such all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence prayed to allow the petition.
3. After service of notice, the respondent No.1 to 4 appeared before the court through their counsel, but the respondent No.1, 2 and 4 have filed written statements.
4. The 1st respondent in his objection statement has denied all the petition averments and contended that the petition itself is not maintainable either on facts or law. He has denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased. He has also denied the amount spent towards the medical and funeral expenses of the deceased. Further this respondent has insured the Roller bearing Reg. No.KA-52-N-1715 with the 2 nd respondent and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Further contended that on the alleged date of accident, the driver of the said road Roller having valid and effective driving licence. Further contended that the compensation and interest claimed by the petitioners are excessive and exorbitant. Hence on all these grounds, he has sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. The respondent No.2 in its objection statement has denied all the petition averments and contended that the petition itself is not maintainable either on facts or law. It has SCCH-08 5 MVC No.6842/2023 denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased. It has also denied the amount spent towards the medical and funeral expenses of the deceased. Further admitted the issuance insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-52-N-1715 and liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, provision of MV Act, valid and effective driving licence held by the driver of the Roller, valid RC, permit and FC and also subject to the confirmation of Sec.64VB of the insurance Act. Respondent also seeks protection under section 147 and 149(2) of M.V. Act. It has also contended that owner and jurisdictional police have not complied the Sec.134(c) and Sec.158(6) of M.V. Act. It has denied the alleged negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Further contended that the compensation and interest claimed by the petitioners are excessive and exorbitant. Hence on all these grounds, it has sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. The respondent No.4 in its objection statement has denied all the petition averments and contended that the petition itself is not maintainable either on facts or law. It has denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased. It has also denied the amount spent towards the medical and funeral expenses of the deceased. Further admitted the issuance insurance policy in respect of the auto bearing Reg. No. KA-05- AB-8938 and liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, provision of MV Act, valid and effective driving licence held by the driver of the Auto, valid RC, permit and FC and also subject to the confirmation of Sec.64VB of the SCCH-08 6 MVC No.6842/2023 insurance Act. Respondent also seeks protection under section 147 and 149(2) of M.V. Act. It has also contended that owner and jurisdictional police have not complied the Sec.134(c) and Sec.158(6) of M.V. Act. It has denied the alleged negligence of the driver of the Auto. Further contended that the compensation and interest claimed by the petitioners are excessive and exorbitant. Hence on all these grounds, it has sought for dismissal of the petition.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues were framed :
ISSUES
1) Whether the petitioners prove that on 30.09.2023 at about 11.30 a.m., when the deceased was travelling in the Auto bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AB-8938 near Thonachenakuppe Bridge, Tumkur-Bengaluru NH-
48 Road, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, at that time, the driver of the Road Roller bearing Reg. No.KA-52-N-1715 suddenly came in a rash and negligent manner from right side towards left side and stopped in the middle of the road without giving any signal or indicator, due to which said auto driver who was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the Road Roller, caused the accident, due to which deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries?
2) Whether the petitioners proves that they are the legal heirs of deceased and dependents of the deceased ?
3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation ? If so, to what extent and from whom ?
4) What order or award ?
SCCH-08 7 MVC No.6842/20238. In order to prove the case, 1st petitioner got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to 23 documents. On the other hand, respondent No.2 has examined a witness as RW.1 and respondent No.4 has examined a witness as RW.2 and they got marked the documents at Ex.R1 to R3.
9. Heard the petitioners and respondents counsels on merits. Perused the entire materials placed on record.
10. This tribunal answers to the above issues are as follows :-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : Party in the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per final order for the
following :
REASONS
11. Issue No.1: While answering issue No.2, I have already observed that the death of Mamatha, was occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending auto bearing Reg. No.KA-50-AB-8938 and also negligent act of the driver of Road roller bearing Reg. No.KA-52-N-1715.
The petitioners claim that, petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioner No.2 is the mother of the deceased. To prove the same, petitioner No.1 filed affidavit in lieu of his chief-
SCCH-08 8 MVC No.6842/2023examination and deposed about the above relationship. On perusal of documents of Aadhar cards and contents of the police papers do fortify the said fact. It is pertinent to note that this relationship of the petitioners with the deceased has not been disputed by the respondents. Since the evidence led by the petitioners is satisfactory and also taking into consideration the fact that there are no rival claimants, this Tribunal hold that the petitioners are the legal representative of the deceased. Therefore, petitioners are the legal heir and dependents of deceased. Hence, this Tribunal answers to issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
12. Issue No.2: As this issue clinches the whole dispute in controversy, this issue is taken for discussion at the inception for better appreciation of evidence and dissection of materials placed on record. The petitioners have knocked the doors of justice with a relief to grant a compensation on account of death of one Mamatha in a Road Traffic Accident.
13. It is the case of petitioners that, on 30.09.2023 at about 11.30 a.m., when the deceased Mamatha was traveling in an Auto bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AB-8938 near Thonachenakuppe Bridge, Tumkur-Bengaluru NH-48 Road, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, at that time, the driver of Road Roller bearing Reg. No.KA-52-N-1715 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly came from right side towards left side and stopped it in the middle of the road without giving any signal or indicator, hence the SCCH-08 9 MVC No.6842/2023 driver of the auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Road Roller. Consequently, the deceased sustained grievous in injuries all over the body and succumbed to the injuries while taking treatment. Thereafter postmortem was conducted and corpse was handed over to the family members. It is further submitted that because of death of deceased the petitioners have suffered both financially and emotionally. It is submitted that, prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy, she was an agriculturist and earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- p.m. It is contended that the accident happened because of rash and negligent driving of the drivers of Road Roller and an Auto and as such all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence prayed to allow the petition.
14. In order to substantiate the contentions of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 stepped into the witness box and filed his affidavit-in-lieu of oral examination-in-chief as PW1 and got marked F.I.R, F.I.S, Police intimation, spot mahazar, Seizure mahazar, Spot sketch, Inquest report, P.M. report, Notice and reply under Sec.133 of IMV Act, IMV report and charge sheet as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. On the other hand, respondent No.2 has examined its Legal Manager as RW.1 and got marked Insurance policy at Ex.D.1. The respondent No.4 has examined its Associate Legal Manager as RW.2 and got marked authorization letter and insurance policy at Ex.R2 and R3.
SCCH-08 10 MVC No.6842/202315. The first question to be considered is with regard to the negligence. Before analyzing the factum of alleged negligence it is relevant to have the conceptual aspects pertaining to the negligence. There are four basic elements that a person has to fulfill in order to do a negligent act. These elements are as follows:
Duty: For committing a negligent act, there must be some duty on the part of the defendant. Here it is important to understand whether the defendant has taken legal duty of care towards the plaintiff.
Breach of Duty: After fulfilling the first criteria the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has breached the legal duty imposed on him/her. It talks about the breach of duty on the part of the defendant which he/ she is expected to do as he/ she has some legal duty towards the plaintiff.
The action of causing something: It means that the damage caused to the plaintiff is due to the act of the defendant. Here the defendant may do an act which is not expected from him/her or the defendant may be negligent in not doing an act which was expected from him/ her. Damages: At last what matters is, there must be some damage/injury that is caused to the plaintiff and this damages should be the direct consequence of the defendant's act.
Negligence means a breach of duty caused by omission to do something which has reasonable man guide by those consideration which ordinarily regulated conduct of human affairs would do which a prudent man would not do. In common prevalence negligence connoted to the want of proper care and the rashness conveys the idea of recklessness or the doing of an act without due consideration.SCCH-08 11 MVC No.6842/2023
16. However, from the evidence placed on record it is crystal clear that, there is no qualm with the fact that, deceased breathed her last in RTA. The only dispute in controversy is as to the alleged rash and negligent act of the offending vehicles.
17. In the instant case on hand, the petitioners in order to prove rash and negligence on the part of the drivers of the Road roller and Auto has produced police documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 complaint. On perusal of the FIR and complaint, these records reflects that the deceased was traveling in the auto as a passenger and the driver of the auto drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the road roller which was parked on the road side without any indications. Further, the document which sheds light on the factum of negligence are Ex.P.5 and P6 being the Spot and Seizer Mahazars and Ex.P7 Sketch prepared at the time of mahazar. On close perusal of the Ex.P.5 to P7 it reflects that petitioner was traveling in the auto bearing No.KA-05-AB- 8938 as passenger, the driver of the auto drove his auto in rash and negligent manner without observing the parked vehicle on road side of National Highway without any indication and dashed to right side of the road roller. This categorically reflects the negligence on the part of the drivers of auto and Road roller. Further more, the contents of Ex.P5 discloses that the road is NH-48 which is 30 feet in width, the driver of the auto drove his auto towards to the highway road without seeing the road roller which was parked on left side of the road. In the same manner the driver of the Road roller SCCH-08 12 MVC No.6842/2023 without any indication parked his vehicle in the highway road in negligent manner. Another important aspect this court does not loose sight of the fact that the accident had occurred due to negligent act of the both the vehicles, the driver of the auto as well as Road rollers were aware of the highway rules, with due care and cautiously drove the vehicles, but no one has taken cautious.
18. Parking a vehicle on the road without indication, which can cause obstruction or inconvenience to other road users, is likely a violation of Section 122 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. If at all the driver of road roller had shown indication of parking, the driver of the Auto would have taken precautionary measures and he would have driven the vehicle in a slow manner and they could have avoided the accident. But the driver of auto was unable to apply brake since he was driving his vehicle at a high speed and road roller parked without indication. Above all even the chargesheet was also filed as against the both the drivers of Auto and road roller. This court is aware of the fact that chargesheet is not a conclusive proof to come to conclusion with regard to rash and negligent act. But having regard to the Ex.P.5 to P7 which is read in consonance with the Ex.P.15 Chargesheet, it is crystal clear that there was rash and negligent act of the drivers of the both vehicles. When such is the case in the light of evidence of PW.1 and compared with police documents categorically reflects as to the rashness and negligence on the part of both vehicles drivers.
SCCH-08 13 MVC No.6842/202319. It is necessary to reassert that in a claim for compensation filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant is expected to prove the incident on basis of principle of preponderance of probabilities and the view taken by this Court is fortified by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kusum and others V/s Satbir and others which is reported in 2011 SAR (CIVIL) 319. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530 has observed that, it is necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants are merely required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. Further the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishnappa and another reported in 2001 ACJ 1105, where the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka considering the fact that the rider of the offending vehicle was not examined to prove any contributory negligence on the part of scooterist held that the accident had occurred due to rash or negligent driving by the rider of the offending van. Even here in this case the drivers of the both vehicles are not examined to show that there was no negligence on their part and even otherwise the IO, as already observed, has clearly opined that the accident occurred due to the fault of the drivers of Auto and Road roller and both were charge sheeted.
SCCH-08 14 MVC No.6842/202320. Though PW.1 cross-examined at length by the respondent No.2 but he withstood the rigor of cross- examination. This court is aware of the fact the charge sheet cannot be trusted as a holy document to come to the conclusion of the negligence. But in the instant case having regard to the other materials placed on record and other surrounding circumstances it is it is clearly forthcoming that the negligence on the part of the both the vehicles drivers. Consequently this tribunal hold that the accident is proved to have been caused due to the actionable negligence of the drivers of auto and road rollers and both have equally contributed to the accident.
Hence contributory negligence is attributed on the drivers of Road Roller bearing Reg.No.KA-52-N-1715 and driver of Auto bearing Reg.No.KA-50-AB-8938 in the ratio of 50:50 respectively. As such, I answer Issue No.2 as 'Partly in the Affirmative'.
21. Issue No.3: In this case, the petitioners have claimed the compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- on the death of deceased Mamatha in the road traffic accident. The petitioners contended that, deceased was an agriculturist and earning of Rs.30,000/-p.m. To prove the income of the deceased, the petitioners have not produced any documents.
22. Be that as it may, in the absence of authentic proof of income of the deceased, this Tribunal has to consider her income notionally for calculating the compensation. Admittedly the accident took place in the year 2023. It is trite law that, SCCH-08 15 MVC No.6842/2023 when the petitioners have failed to prove the income, the income of the deceased has to be taken into consideration as notional income.
23. The next moot question to be considered is as to how the notional income has to be considered in the eye of law. It is settled law that in case when the claimants failed to prove the income of deceased then court must dwell into take notional income. It is relevant to rely on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka rendered on Division Bench in the case of Ananda v/s Arjun and another in MFA.No.101144/2020 (MV) dated.05.07.2023. Wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has laid down the following principles in para No.8(b) are as here under :
"(b) The accident is of the year 2017. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month as against the claim of Rs.2,50,000/- per annum. To substantiate the said claim, the injured claimant has not placed any material on record, it is for the Courts and Tribunals to assess the income notionally. The notional income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the accident of the year 2017 is Rs.10,250/-. In the absence of any material produced by the claimant to prove his income, it is appropriate to assess the notional income of the injured claimant at Rs.10,250/- per month, and the same is assessed as the monthly income of the injured claimant"
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 SCCH-08 16 MVC No.6842/2023 accident was occurred on 30.09.2023. Therefore, Rs.16,000/- has to be taken into consideration as monthly income of the deceased.
24. The petitioners have produced the Aadhar card to show the age of the deceased as per Ex.P20. The contents ingrained in the said documents of the deceased discloses the date of birth as 16.05.1991 and the accident had taken place on 30.09.2023 and it shows that, at the time of accident the deceased was aged about 32 years. Hence the proper multiplier applicable to the case on hand is '16'.
25. As per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) (National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and others), if the person died in the motor accident, the income with respect to the future prospect has to taken into consideration while awarding compensation. The Hon'ble Apex Court has provided the chart for age of the deceased and percentage for future prospects in between below the age of 40 years 40%, 40 years to 50 years 25% and 50 to 60 years 10%. The deceased is not a permanent Employee and not a fixed salary person and she died at the age of 32 years. Therefore, in this case, 40% income has to be taken into consideration for future prospects. Further as stated above that, as on the date of accident, deceased aged about 32 years and as such, 40% is added to the income of the deceased, then it comes to Rs.22,400/- p.m. (Rs.16,000/- + 6,400/- i.e. 40%).
SCCH-08 17 MVC No.6842/202326. The deceased died leaving behind 2 dependents. As per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarala Verma Case, 1/3rd of her income is required to be deducted towards her personal expenses which comes to Rs.14,934/- p.m. (Rs.22,400 - Rs.7,466 = Rs.14,934/-).
27. The income of the deceased is taken as Rs.14,934/- p.m. and the multiplier '16' is applied, then the loss of dependency comes to Rs.28,67,328/- (Rs.14,934/- X 12 X 16). Considering the above facts, this Tribunal deems it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.28,67,328/- under the head of loss of dependency.
28. Further, as Law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, the compensation towards loss to estate, funeral expenses and consortium is to be awarded. The petitioners contended that they have spent substantial amount towards transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies etc., but no documents are produced. Hence this Tribunal award Rs.16,500/- towards loss to estate and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses as enhanced at the rate of 10% on every 3 years and Rs.44,000/- towards consortium to the petitioner No.1.
29. In this case, the petitioner No.1 is the husband and the petitioner No.2 is the mother of the deceased and as per the decision reported in (2018) 12 SCC 130 in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited V/s Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, the SCCH-08 18 MVC No.6842/2023 petitioner No.2 is entitled for filial consortium, as the filial consortium is the right of the parents and children to get compensation in the case of an accidental death of children/father/mother as the case may be. An accident leading to the death of a daughter cause great shock and agony to the mother of the deceased and they lost their love and affection towards their daughter. Therefore, petitioner 2 is entitled for Rs.44,000/- under the head of Filial consortium.
30. Medical expenses:
The petitioners have produced medical expenses of the deceased at Ex.P18 for an amount of Rs.28,953/- for having admitted her to the Sparsh hospital. Hence, petitioners are entitled for Rs.28,953/- under this head.
31. The calculation table stands as follows :
Compensation heads Compensation
amount
1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.28,67,328/-
2. Towards loss of Consortium to Rs.44,000/-
the petitioner No.1
3. Towards loss to estate Rs.16,500/-
4. Towards transportation of dead Rs.16,500/-
body funeral and obsequies
ceremony expenses
5. Towards loss of Filial consortium Rs.44,000/-
to petitioner No.2
6. Medical expenses Rs.28,953/-
Total Rs.30,17,281/-
SCCH-08 19 MVC No.6842/2023
32. As regard the apportionment of compensation is concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioner No.2 is the mother of the deceased. Hence out of the total compensation, the petitioners are entitled for compensation at the ratio of 50:50 respectively.
33. The petitioners are claiming interest @ 9% per annum on the compensation amount. The respondent has denied the same. Our Hon'ble High Court in the case rendered in Vijay Ishwar Jadhav and others Vs Ulrich Belchior Fernandes and another (MFA.No.100090/2014 C/W MFA.No.25107/2013 dated 07.03.2018), has held that in the absence of any other law relating to interest on judgments, the MACT has to follow the provisions of Sec.34 of C.P.C and awarded interest @ 6% per annum. Considering the aforesaid decision, I deem it proper to award interest at 6% per annum on the above compensation amount.
34. Regarding fixation of liability is concerned, I have already observed that the accident was taken place due to the negligence on the part of the drivers of offending Road Roller bearing Reg.No.KA-52-N-1715 and driver of Auto bearing Reg.No.KA-50-AB-8938. It is not in dispute that 1st and 3rd respondents are the owners of the offending vehicles. The Ex.R1 and Ex.R3 of Road Roller and Auto discloses that the said vehicles were having valid insurance policies and were in force at the time of accident. The respondents have not proved the breach of any of the policy conditions. Therefore, the 1 st and 2nd respondents being the owner and insurer of the offending Road roller bearing Reg. No. KA-52-N-1715 and 3 rd SCCH-08 20 MVC No.6842/2023 and 4th respondent being the owner and insurer of Auto bearing Reg. No. KA-05-AB-8938 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. However the 2nd and 4th respondents being the Insurers of offending vehicles i.e. road roller bearing Reg. No. KA-52-N-1715 and auto bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AB- 8938 shall indemnify the 1st and 3rd respondents equally in payment of compensation amount to the petitioners. Accordingly, I answer issue No.2 and 3 Partly in the Affirmative.
35. Issue No.4 : In view of the discussion made supra, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following :
ORDER The petition filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act 1988, is hereby partly allowed with costs in the following terms :
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.30,17,281/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization of the entire award amount.
Out of the compensation amount the respondent No.2 and 4 are liable to pay 50% each and directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of award.
On deposit of the award amount together with interest, the claimants are entitled for the compensation amount by way of apportionment as follows :
Petitioner No.1 - 50% Petitioner No.2 - 50% SCCH-08 21 MVC No.6842/2023 Out of the share amount of Petitioner No.1 and 2 a sum equal to 30% shall be deposited in their names in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank of their choice for a period of 3 years and the remaining 70% shall be released to them through E-payment on proper identification and verification. However the said petitioners are at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on his deposit amount from time to time.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer & printout taken by her, then corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of August-2025).
(Kannika M.S.) XII Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACJM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the petitioner/s:
PW.1 : Sri. Ranganatha List of documents got marked for the petitioner/s:
Ex.P.1 True copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 True copy of Complaint
Ex.P.3 Police requisition
Ex.P.4 Police Intimation
Ex.P.5 True copy of Spot mahazar
Ex.P.6 True copy of Seizure mahazar
Ex.P.7 True copy of Spot sketch
SCCH-08 22 MVC No.6842/2023
Ex.P.8 True copy of Inquest report
Ex.P.9 True copy of PM report
Ex.P.10 & 11 True copy of Notices under Sec.133 of IMV Act Ex.P.12 & 13 True copy of Reply to notice U/sec.133 of IMV Act Ex.P.14 True copy of IMV report Ex.P.15 True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P.16 Referral letter of Harsha Hospital Ex.P.17 Death report issued by Sparsh Hospital Ex.P.18 Medical bills Ex.P.19 Medical prescriptions Ex.P.20 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of deceased Ex.P.21 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of PW.1 Ex.P.22 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.2 Ex.P.23 Notarized copy of Ration card List of witnesses examined for the respondent/s:
RW.1 : Ms. Swathi RW.2 : Ms. Thrishi Subbaiah
List of documents got marked for the respondent/s :
Ex.R.1 : Insurance policy
Ex.R.2 : Authorization letter
Ex.R.3 : Insurance policy
(Kannika M.S.)
XII Addl. Small Causes Judge
& ACJM, Bengaluru.