Bangalore District Court
Udaya Prakash Bhat vs Iffco Tokio Gen Ins Co. Ltd on 17 July, 2025
KABC020422352023
BEFORE THE COURT OF I ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM &
MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
(SCCH-11)
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY - 2025
PRESENT: SRI.NARENDRA.B.R., B.Sc, L.L.B.
I ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM
& MEMBER - MACT
MVC No.8327/2023
PETITIONER:
Sri.Udaya Prakash Bhat,
S/o.Govind Bhat Belkale,
Aged: 46 years,
R/at: No.2103, Prestige South,
Ridage, 100 feet road,
Hosakerehalli Cross,
Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bengaluru
South, Byatarayanapura,
Bengaluru - 560085.
(By - Sri.D.Venugopal, Advocate)
-Versus-
RESPONDENTS:
1. The Manager
IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
TP Claims, No.141, Sri
SCCH-11 2 MVC.No.8327/2023
Shanthi Tower, 5th Floor,
3rd Main, East of NGEF Layout,
Kasturi Nagar, Bengaluru - 560043.
(In Policy No.P400MQ542581.
Date of validity from 30.08.2022
to 29.08.2023.
2. Sri.Naveen.N, Proprietor,
SCP Ready Mix Concrete,
No.02, Nethaji Road Cross,
Bengaluru - 560061.
(R.C.Owner of the Cement Mixer
Lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-05-AG-2360).
(R1 - By Sri.S.Maheswara, Adv.)
(R2 - Exparte)
J U D G M E N T
This petition is filed by the petitioner U/s.166 of Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation of ₹.8,00,000/- for the damages caused to the Car bearing Regn.No.KA-05-MH-4496 in road traffic accident, which took place on 16.11.2022. The compensation is sought against respondent No.1 & 2, who are the insurer and owner of Cement Mixer Lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-05-AG-2360, which caused the SCCH-11 3 MVC.No.8327/2023 accident.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that on 16.11.2022 at about 12.30 p.m., when the petitioner was driving Car bearing Regn.No.KA-05-MH- 4496, near Chikkabeguru Gate, Hosuru Main Road, Bengaluru, a Cement Mixer Lorry bearing Regn.No.KA- 05-AG-2360, driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner's car. Due to the accident, petitioner's car was fully damaged and spent a sum of ₹.5,00,000/- towards repair charges of car.
Prior to the accident, the Car was in a good condition and due to accident the car was totally damaged. The said vehicle is essential for his work and due to accident, inconvenience and loss of income is caused to the petitioner. The respondents, being insurer and owner of the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation SCCH-11 4 MVC.No.8327/2023 to the petitioner.
3. In pursuance of service of notice, respondent No.1 appeared before the tribunal through the counsel and filed written statement. The respondent No.2 did not appear before the tribunal and hence, he has been placed ex-parte.
4. The brief contents of written statement of respondent No.1 is as below:
The respondent No.1, in the objection statement, has denied the contents of petition specifically and categorically. Further contended that the claim petition filed by petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts and same is liable to be dismissed. Respondent No.1 admitted that they are the insurer of Cement Mixer Lorry and contended that the liability, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions of policy. Further contended that the SCCH-11 5 MVC.No.8327/2023 cement mixer lorry was not at all involved in the alleged accident. The petitioner himself was solely responsible for alleged accident. Further contended that the alleged accident took place on 16.11.2022 and claim petition was instituted on 16.12.2023 i.e., after lapse of 1 year 1 month from the date of accident. Further contended that the driver of Cement Mixer Lorry was not holding valid and effective driving license and the vehicle was not having valid FC and permit as on the date of accident. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant. Hence, prayed for dismissal of petition.
6. On the basis of above pleadings, this Tribunal has framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether petitioner proves that, his Car bearing registration No.KA-05-MH-
4496 damaged in the accident that SCCH-11 6 MVC.No.8327/2023 occurred on 16.11.2022 at about 12.30 p.m., near Chikkabeguru Gate, Hosuru Main Road, Bengaluru, when petitioner was driving his Car bearing Regn.No.KA-
05-MH-4496, due to the rash and negligent driving of Cement Mixer Lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-05-AG-2360 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed in the claim petition? If so, what is the quantum of compensation and from whom?
3. What order or award?
7. In order to prove the contention of the petition, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 documents and closed his side evidence. On the other hand, FDA of Jayanagar, Bengaluru got examined as RW.1 and the respondent insurance company examined its Legal Executive as RW.2 and got marked documents at Ex.R.1 to 5 and closed their side of evidence.
8. Heard the arguments of both the side and perused the materials available on record. SCCH-11 7 MVC.No.8327/2023
9. Findings of this tribunal on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative;
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative;
Issue No.3 : As per final order for the
following:-
-:REASONS:-
10. Issue No.1:- The petitioner has filed claim petition contending that on 16.11.2022 at about 12.30 p.m. accident took place near Chikkabeguru Gate, Hosuru Main Road, Bengaluru, due to rash and negligent driving of Cement Mixer Lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-05-AG-2360 driven by its driver, due to which his car got fully damaged.
11. The petitioner, in order to prove his case, got himself examined as PW.1 and produced 11 documents at Ex.P.1 to P.11. In the chief SCCH-11 8 MVC.No.8327/2023 examination, PW.1 reiterated the petition averments. Ex.P.1 is the FIR. Ex.P.2 is the complaint. Ex.P.2 discloses the aspect of Ex.P.3 is spot mahazar, Ex.P.4 - Sketch, Ex.P.5 is IMV Report, Ex.P.6 & 7 - 133 Notice and its reply. Ex.P.8 - Charge Sheet, Ex.P.9 - Service estimation, Ex.P.10 - Photographs, Ex.P.11 - Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card.
12. The petitioner furnished the FIR and first information statement which is marked as Ex.P.1 and P.2. The first information statement is lodged by the petitioner and in the first information statement, the accident is stated to have been caused due to negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle. Further, the FIR is registered against the driver of cement mixer lorry for the offence punishable under Sec.279 of IPC. In the FIR, the accident is stated to have been caused due to rash and negligent driving of cement mixer lorry by SCCH-11 9 MVC.No.8327/2023 its driver. The driver or owner of mixer lorry does not appear to have questioned the FIR registered by the police. The petitioner also furnished certified copy of mahazar & sketch which are marked as Ex.P.3 & 4. In the said documents also, the accident is stated to have been caused due to rash and negligent driving of cement mixer lorry driver. In the mahazar also, the accident is stated to have been caused due to negligence on the part of driver of cement lorry. The sketch furnished by petitioner also depicts the aspect of negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle in the cause of accident. The respondents not furnished satisfactory materials to show that the facts at the place of accident, as narrated in the mahazar and the sketch, differ from the actual facts at the place of accident. No satisfactory materials are placed to show that the facts at place of accident differ from the actual SCCH-11 10 MVC.No.8327/2023 facts. The petitioner also furnished the certified copy of final report filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate pertaining to the accident which is marked as Ex.P.8. The final report is filed after detailed investigation by the jurisdictional Police and same is filed against the driver of the cement mixer lorry. In the final report, the accident is stated to have been caused due to rashness and negligence on the part of driver of cement mixer lorry. The said document discloses that rash or negligent driving of cement mixer lorry by its driver is the cause for the accident. The owner or driver of the cement mixer lorry does not appear to have challenged the FIR or final report filed by police. The FIR or the final report filed against the driver of the cement mixer lorry does not appear to have been questioned in any manner. The respondents not placed any satisfactory materials in SCCH-11 11 MVC.No.8327/2023 order to controvert or disprove the police documents or its recitals. The police documents furnished by petitioner are not rebutted by respondents by placing cogent and satisfactory materials.
13. Further, the petitioner got examined as PW.1 and filed the affidavit in lieu of chief examination, wherein he reiterated the aspects stated in the petition. PW.1 is cross examined on behalf of respondent No.1. In the cross examination, nothing contrary to the contention of petitioner related to the aspect of rashness or negligence on the part of cement mixer lorry driver, could be elicited. Though PW.1 is cross examined at length, nothing could be elicited to show that the accident was not caused due to rashness or negligence on the part of cement mixer lorry driver. Further, nothing contrary to the documents furnished by petitioner, related to negligence of cement mixer lorry driver, SCCH-11 12 MVC.No.8327/2023 could be elicited during the cross examination. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by petitioner substantiate his contention with respect to negligence on the part of the driver of cement mixer lorry in the cause of accident.
14. The respondent No.1 got examined FDA of Jayanagar, Bengaluru as RW.1 and its Legal Executive as RW.2 and got marked documents at Ex.R1 to 5. The evidence of RW.1 and RW.2 is not of much assistance to the respondents to disprove or rebut the contention of petitioner related to accident and negligence of driver of offending vehicle in the cause of accident.
15. The respondents not placed satisfactory materials in order contradict the contention of petitioner related to accident and negligence of driver of offending vehicle. On perusal of the materials on record, it can be duly construed that SCCH-11 13 MVC.No.8327/2023 the rash or negligent driving of cement mixer lorry by its driver is the cause for the accident. The materials on record disclose that the accident is caused due to rash and negligent driving of cement mixer lorry by its driver. Moreover the respondent not rebutted the documents produced by petitioner with cogent and satisfactory materials. So, on perusal of records placed before the Tribunal, it discloses that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of cement mixer Lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-05-AG-2360 by its driver. In the absence of materials to rebut the police documents, same has to be considered in order to ascertain the aspect of negligence on the part of driver of cement mixer lorry. The petitioner succeeded in establishing the negligence on the part of cement mixer lorry driver in the cause of accident. Hence, this court answers Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
SCCH-11 14 MVC.No.8327/2023
16. Issue No.2:- While considering issue No.1, this tribunal has observed that there was an accident on 16.11.2022 caused by rash and negligent driving of Cement Mixer Lorry by its driver of respondent No.2 and in the said accident car was damaged. It is the contention of the petitioner that his car got damaged in the accident caused due to negligence of driver of cement mixer lorry. The petitioner has sought for total amount of ₹.8,00,000/- as compensation in this case.
17. The petitioner contended that he has spent around ₹.5,00,000/- for repair of the car which got damaged in the accident. In order to substantiate the said aspect, the petitioner furnished photographs which are marked at Ex.P.10 and the Job Order issued by Toyota Company, which is marked as Ex.P.9. Ex.P.10 discloses the aspect of damages caused to the car bearing Regn.No.KA-05-MH-4496. SCCH-11 15 MVC.No.8327/2023 The aspect of damages caused to the car is substantiated by the IMV Report furnished by the petitioner which is marked as Ex.P.5. As per Ex.P.5, the rear right side bumper, right side quarter panel and rear dickey door stated to have been damaged. On perusal of Ex.P.9, the estimation of expenses made by concerned company appears to include the damages to the car apart from the damages mentioned in Ex.P.5, IMV Report. As per Ex.P9, the amount of expenses for repair charges is stated to be ₹.2,19,699.35. The said document appears to be an estimate of cost that might be incurred for repair of the car. The petitioner specifically contended that he has spent ₹.5,00,000/- for repair of the car. But the amount stated by petitioner is not mentioned in Ex.P9. The petitioner not examined the concerned person from the Toyota Motor World Private Limited, who got issued the estimation for the SCCH-11 16 MVC.No.8327/2023 repair of the car, which is marked at Ex.P.9. The entries in Ex.P9 is not substantiated and corroborated by the evidence of the concerned person from the said company. Further, the petitioner not furnished satisfactory materials to show that he paid the amount as mentioned in Ex.P9, to the Toyota Motor World Private Limited towards the expenses of repair of the car. No satisfactory materials are placed by the petitioner to show the aspect of payment of ₹.2,19,629/- to the company for carrying out the repair of the car. As stated above, the amount mentioned in Ex.P9 is only estimation and no materials are placed by petitioner to show that the amount mentioned therein is the ultimate and actual cost and expenses incurred by him for repair of car.
18. The petitioner got examined as PW.1 and in the cross examination, PW.1 admitted that Ex.P.9 is valuation done by Toyota Showroom and also stated SCCH-11 17 MVC.No.8327/2023 that estimation is done pertaining to the outer part of the car. As per the materials on record, the car appears to have been damaged outside and the assessment appears to be pertaining to the outer part of the car. It is the contention of the petitioner that he got repaired the car and incurred expenses of ₹.5,00,000/- for the repair. But no materials are placed before the tribunal to show that the car is being repaired and the amount mentioned in Ex.P9 is being paid by the petitioner. Further, PW.1 admitted that he has not furnished any document to show that he got repaired the car. The petitioner contends that he incurred expenses of ₹.5,00,000/- for repair of the car, but no satisfactory materials are placed before the tribunal to show incurring of said amount towards the expenses of repair of car. Ex.P.9 discloses that a sum of ₹.2,19,629/- is incurred as expenses SCCH-11 18 MVC.No.8327/2023 for the repair of car which appears to be only estimation and not a conclusive expenses for the repair. The petitioner not furnished satisfactory materials to show the actual expenses incurred by him for repair of the car. The petitioner contended that he incurred ₹.5,00,000/- for repair of car, but no satisfactory materials are placed before the tribunal in order to substantiate the said contention. Further, no materials are placed by the petitioner to show the aspect of payment of amount mentioned in Ex.P9 to the Toyota Motor World Private Limited towards the repair of car. In Ex.P9, the date on which the vehicle was taken for repair and the date on which the vehicle agreed to be delivered after repair has been mentioned. As per Ex.P9, the vehicle was taken to the Toyota Showroom on 25.11.2022 i.e., after lapse of 9 days from the date of accident. Further, Ex.P.9 discloses the aspect of SCCH-11 19 MVC.No.8327/2023 agreed delivery date to be on 03.12.2022. No materials are placed before the tribunal to show that the vehicle was obtained from the Toyota Showroom on the agreed date as mentioned in Ex.P9. If the petitioner got repaired the car at Toyota showroom and obtained the delivery, then he could have furnished the document in that regard. The petitioner could have furnished the delivery note for having obtained the car from the showroom after completion of repair. The petitioner not furnished any satisfactory materials in that regard. Ex.P.9 is not a conclusive document to consider the aspect of expenses incurred by petitioner for repair of car. As admitted by PW.1, Ex.P.9 is only estimation of expenses for repair of car and no materials are placed before the Tribunal to show the aspect of payment of amount mentioned therein.
19. Further, PW.1, in the chief examination, SCCH-11 20 MVC.No.8327/2023 stated that he got the car repaired at private garage at Bengaluru for which he stated to have incurred expense of ₹.5,00,000/-. As per the contention of petitioner and the document furnished by him, he stated to have got the car repaired at Toyota showroom and he furnished the document in that regard. But, in the chief examination, PW.1 stated that he got the car repaired at private garage which is contrary to his own contention and the document furnished by petitioner. The said aspect indicates that the petitioner does not appear to have repaired the car at Toyota showroom and the amount mentioned in Ex.P9 does not appear to have been paid by the petitioner. The petitioner appears to have obtained only estimation from the Toyota showroom without getting the car repaired in the showroom. PW.1 clearly stated in the chief examination itself that he got the car repaired at SCCH-11 21 MVC.No.8327/2023 private garage which aspect negates the estimation given by Toyota showroom as per Ex.P.9. The evidence of PW.1 does not appear to substantiate recitals of Ex.P.9. The petitioner does not appear to have got the car repaired at Toyota showroom and Ex.P.9 appears to have been obtained only to know the estimated expense of the repair. Though the petitioner stated that he got the car repaired at private garage, he has not stated the name of the private garage or the name of the person who repaired the car. The petitioner not stated the name of the garage as well as the name of the person who repaired the car. The petitioner not furnished any materials to show the aspect of getting the car repaired through private garage. The petitioner also not examined the concerned person from the private garage in which he stated to have got the car repaired. The petitioner not mentioned the name of SCCH-11 22 MVC.No.8327/2023 garage or the person who repaired the car, in his petition or chief examination affidavit. The statement of petitioner is not substantiated by any cogent and corroborative materials.
20. On perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the car belonging to the petitioner got damaged in the accident. The petitioner is seeking compensation for the damages caused to the car in the said accident. As per the evidence of petitioner, the car does not appear to have been repaired by the petitioner at Toyota showroom. Ex.P.9 does not reflect about actual expenses incurred for repair of the car and it is only an estimation of expenses that may be incurred. The said document is not conclusive in order to ascertain the claim of petitioner.
21. In addition to the above mentioned document, the petitioner produced Ex.P.10 - 5 photographs to SCCH-11 23 MVC.No.8327/2023 show that his vehicle was damaged in the accident. The photographs furnished by petitioner reflect the aspect of damages caused to the vehicle. In addition to these documents, the petitioner also produced Ex.P.5 Motor vehicle report, wherein IMV inspector mentioned that rear right side bumper damaged, right side quarter panel damaged and rear dickey door damaged. The documents furnished by petitioner disclose the aspect of damage caused to the car belonging to the petitioner.
22. The petitioner not examined the author of Ex.P.9 in order to substantiate his contention and to corroborate the contents of said document. Except producing of Ex.P.9 the petitioner placed nothing before this Tribunal to prove that he has spent the amount, as stated by him, for repair of car. No materials are placed by the petitioner to show that he incurred expenses, as mentioned in the petition, SCCH-11 24 MVC.No.8327/2023 for repair of the car. The petitioner could have examined the concerned mechanic or the concerned person of service center or the garage, where car is stated to have been repaired, in order to prove his contentions. Further, the petitioner also not furnished any survey report which might have indicated about assessment of damage. Ex.P.9 is only an estimate of expenses that might be required for repair of car and is not a conclusive bill of expenses incurred for the repair.
23. As discussed above, the petitioner succeeded in establishing the contentions taken by him related to the aspect of accident due to negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and also car being damaged due to said accident. The materials on record disclose the aspect of causing of damage to the car by the accident which is caused due to negligence on the part of driver of offending SCCH-11 25 MVC.No.8327/2023 vehicle. The photographs furnished by petitioner depict the damages caused to the car. Further, Ex.P.5 - IMV report discloses the nature and extent of damages caused to the car. The respondents not furnished any materials to disprove or rebut the said document which disclose the aspect of damages being caused to the car. The materials on record disclose the aspect of car being damaged in the accident caused due to negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle. The petitioner is entitled to compensation, though not to the quantum as claimed by his, for the damages caused to the car in the accident. The respondents not furnished any satisfactory materials to rebut or disprove the photographs furnished by petitioner in order to show the damages caused to the vehicle. As discussed above, the petitioner succeeded in establishing that the accident is caused due to rash and negligent SCCH-11 26 MVC.No.8327/2023 driving of cement mixer lorry by its driver. The petitioner also succeeded in establishing that the car belonged to him got damaged due to the said accident. Though the petitioner failed to substantiate his contention pertaining to the aspect of expenses incurred for the repair, considering the nature of damages caused to the car and the circumstances of the case, it appears just and appropriate to award a sum of ₹.1,00,000/- global compensation, to the petitioner for the damages caused to the car.
24. The materials on record reveals that respondent No.2 is the owner of offending vehicle and the offending vehicle is having valid policy of insurance at the time of accident. The respondent No.1 specifically contended that the offending vehicle is not having valid permit and FC to ply in the area of accident and violated the terms of SCCH-11 27 MVC.No.8327/2023 policy conditions and hence, they are not liable to pay compensation. In order to substantiate the said contention, respondent No.1 got examined FDA of RTO, Bangalore South, Bengaluru, as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to R.3 documents through the said witness. RW.1 furnished certified copy of B-Register Extract pertaining to offending vehicle, which is marked as Ex.R.2. Ex.R.2 discloses that the offending vehicle was not having permit as on the date of accident. Further, RW.1 furnished the history pertaining to the offending vehicle which is marked as Ex.R.3. The said document discloses that the offending vehicle was not having valid permit and fitness certificate at the time of accident. The materials on record do not disclose the aspect of possessing valid permit for the offending vehicle, as on the date of accident. It is not forthcoming from the materials on record regarding permit being granted prior to SCCH-11 28 MVC.No.8327/2023 the accident or existence of valid permit as on the date of accident. Ex.R.2 & 3 substantiates the contention of respondent No.2 regarding not possessing of valid permit by offending vehicle at the time of accident. RW.1 deposed that the offending vehicle was not having valid permit as on 16.11.2022 i.e, the date of accident. The petitioner not furnished any materials in order to controvert or rebut the evidence of RW.1.
25. The materials placed on record disclose that the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective permit at the time of accident. There is violation of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. As there is violation of conditions related to permit, the said violation falls under Sec.150 of M.V.Act. As per Sec.150 of M.V.Act, the insurance company can plead the defence related to violation of permit among other grounds provided SCCH-11 29 MVC.No.8327/2023 under the said provision. The materials on record clearly disclose the aspect of violation of conditions of permit as well as conditions of policy of insurance by respondent No.2. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.2 neither appeared before the tribunal nor placed any materials in order to negate the contention of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 not placed materials to show that the offending vehicle was having valid and effective permit as on the date of accident. The materials placed on record disclose the aspect of violation of terms and conditions of policy by respondent No.2 related to permit.
26. The accident in question occurred on 16.11.2022 i.e., subsequent to the amendment which came into effect from 1/4/2022. As per the provisions of Sec.150 of Motor Vehicles, the insurance company cannot be fastened with liability SCCH-11 30 MVC.No.8327/2023 to pay compensation if there is violation of terms of the policy. In the present case, the Offending vehicle bearing Regn.No.KA-05-AG-2360 does not appear to have valid permit at the time of accident which aspect is forthcoming from the materials placed on record. The materials on record disclose the aspect of violation of terms of the policy. Though the policy pertaining to offending vehicle is in existence at the time of accident, as there is violation of conditions of permit, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. Further, in view of the amendment to the Act, as discussed supra, no liability can be fastened on Respondent No.1, to pay the compensation and to recover the same from the Respondent No.2 under pay and recovery theory.
27. The learned counsel for petitioner relied upon following citations:-
SCCH-11 31 MVC.No.8327/2023
1. MFA.No.7089/2016 (MV-D) C/w.MFA.No.6824/2016 (MV-D) of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in between The legal Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.Nagamma and others.
2. MFA.No.11803/2012 (MV) of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in between S.N.Kenchanna Vs. Smt.Anitha and others.
This tribunal carefully perused the decisions relied by the counsel for petitioner. The decisions relied by the counsel for petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
28. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 relied upon following citations:-
1. ILR 2000 KAR 2009 of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in between Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. George Ninum.SCCH-11 32 MVC.No.8327/2023
2. MFA.No.3567 of 2022 (MV-DM) of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in between BMTC Vs. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co., Ltd., and another.
3. CMPMO NO.714/2023, a/w.715, 716, 717, 723, 734, 735, 736, 737, 738, 739, 740, 741, 742, 744, 745 of 2023, CMPMO No.17, 19, 39, 40, 45, 491, 511, 518 and 647 of 2024 of Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.
29. This tribunal carefully perused the decisions relied by counsel for respondent No.1. The 1st and 3rd decisions relied by the counsel for respondent No.1 is not applicable to the present case. The 2 nd decision relied by the counsel for respondent No.1 is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the liability of paying the compensation to the petitioners is to be fastened solely on the Respondent No.2, who is the owner of the offending vehicle, as he has violated the policy condition by plying the vehicle SCCH-11 33 MVC.No.8327/2023 in the limits to which permit was not valid and effective. The offending vehicle does not have permit to ply the vehicle as on the date of accident. Respondent No.2, though appeared before the Tribunal, not placed any materials in order to controvert the contention of respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 not placed materials to show that the vehicle involved in the accident was taken without his permission or knowledge. Respondent No.1 not put forth any contention contrary to the version of respondent No.1. There is violation of terms of the policy issued by respondent No.1. As there is violation of terms of the policy, the liability cannot be fastened on respondent No.2 to pay the compensation. Respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation. The compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. In the result Issue No.2 is answered Partly in the Affirmative.
30. Issue No.3: In view of the findings given on the above said issues, this tribunal proceeds to SCCH-11 34 MVC.No.8327/2023 pass the following:
ORDER The claim petition filed by the petitioner Under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for total compensation amount of ₹.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.
Respondent No.2, being the owner of offending vehicle, is solely liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners with interest within two months from the date of award.
This petition against the Respondent No.1 is dismissed.
Entire compensation amount shall be released in favour of petitioner as amount is meager one.SCCH-11 35 MVC.No.8327/2023
After deposit of compensation amount with interest thereon disburse amount as mentioned above as per guidelines laid down by Hon'ble High Court in MFA.No.2509/2019 (ECA) and as per General Circular No.2/2019 dated 19.8.2019.
The petitioner hereby directed to produce particulars of her Bank Account, with name of Bank, IFSC Code, Account Number with copy of First Page of Bank Pass Book which contained compulsorily photographs of petitioner, which is duly attested by concerned Bank. Further petitioner shall produce PAN Card/Aadhaar Card.
In case of deposit of awarded amount with interest thereon by respondent, the petitioner is entitled to receive amount as mentioned above after expiry of period provided for filing an appeal.
The Advocate fee is fixed at ₹.1,000/-. SCCH-11 36 MVC.No.8327/2023 Draw up award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer over computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 17th day of July - 2025.) (NARENDRA.B.R) I ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM & MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU A N N E X U R E LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
PW.1 Sri.Udaya Prakash Bhat
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS:
Ex.P1 FIR
Ex.P2 Complaint
Ex.P3 Spot Panchanama
Ex.P4 Sketch
Ex.P5 IMV Report
Ex.P6-7 133 Notice & Reply Notice
Ex.P8 Charge Sheet
Ex.P9 Vehicle Estimation
Ex.P10 Photographs
Ex.P11 Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card
SCCH-11 37 MVC.No.8327/2023
LIST OF WITNESSES ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
RW.1 Sri.Vijay Kumar
RW.2 Sri.Likith.K.C.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R1 Authorization letter
Ex.R2 B Extract
Ex.R3 Vehicle Report
Ex.R4 Authorization letter
Ex.R5 Copy of Policy
(NARENDRA.B.R.)
I ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM
& MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU