Bangalore District Court
Sarojamma vs Krishna Kumar on 16 September, 2025
SCCH-23 1 MVC-7805/2023
KABC020382152023
IN THE COURT OF XXI ADDL.SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.
(SCCH-23)
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER - 2025
PRESENT: Sri. Shreyansh Doddamani
B.Com. LL.B (Spl)
XXI ADDL. SCJ & ACJM
MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU.
MVC. No.7805/2023
Petitioner: Smt. Sarojamma,
W/o Chikka Narayanappa,
Abed about 66 years,
Gudamaralahalli village,
Gudamaralahalli post,
Chintamani Taluk,
Chikkaballapura District-563125.
(By Sri. Srinath. B.V, Adv)
v/s
Respondent/s : 1. Sri. Krishna Kumar,
S/o Venkataswamy,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at Hebbari village,
Immareddypalli post,
Chintamani Taluk,
Chikkaballapura District-563125
Owner of Bolero Pickup vehicle
bearing Reg.No.KA-40-B-0486
(By Sri. M.V.Srinivasa, Adv)
SCCH-23 2 MVC-7805/2023
2. Cholamandalam MS Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd.,
B.B.Road,
Chikkaballapura (Opp.HC Office)
Chikkaballapura-562101.
And also :
59th Cross, Industrial Suburb,
Rajajinagar 4th Block,
Bengaluru-560010.
(By Sri. Madhu Kiran, Adv)
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed under section 166 of the M.V. Act, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident.
2. The case of the petitioner in the nutshell is that on 20.06.2023 at about 7.30 p.m, the petitioner and others was going to Siddepalli to Kariyapallai village for Bajana programme in Bolero bearing Reg.No.KA-40-B-0486, the driver thereof drove the Bolero at a very high speed in a rash & negligent manner so as to endanger to human life without following traffic rules and when they reached near Kenchalarahalli lake at that time the driver lost control over the vehicle and due to the said impact the Bolero turned turtle into road right side pit, causing an accident in which all the inmates sustained severe injuries and some of them have died. Immediately after the SCCH-23 3 MVC-7805/2023 accident the petitioner was shifted to Chintamani Government Hospital, wherein she took first aid and thereafter she was shifted to Chikkaballapura hospital and thereafter to Arka Hospital, Bengaluru. Wherein she took treatment as an inpatient and underwent several examinations and was discharged with an advice to take complete bed rest and regular followup treatment. She has spent substantial amount towards medical and other incidental expenses. Due to the accidental injuries she became disabled and lost her earning capacity. It is further urged that, the accident happened because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bolero Pick up vehicle. The respondent No.1 & 2 being the owner and insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, as such prayed to grant a compensation amount.
3. Notice was duly served to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 appeared through his counsel by filing written statement rather objections to the main petition contending that the petition itself is not maintainable either law or on facts. The respondent No.1 denied the negligence on his part but contended that the driver of the said vehicle drove the vehicle on the extreme left side on Chintamani - Cheluru main road SCCH-23 4 MVC-7805/2023 slowly and cautiously, by observing the traffic rules and regulations, while so proceeding reached near Kencharlahalli lake, due to over pits and rough road said Bolero vehicle turtled into road side pit. The respondent No.1 admitted that he is the RC owner of the Bolero vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-40- B-04186 and was duly insured with the 2 nd respondent and same was in force as on the date of accident. It is further submitted that the driver of the vehicle also possess valid and effective driving licence. Further denied all the allegation made in the petition. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. After service of notice, respondent No.2 filed written statement by contending that the petition itself is not maintainable either law or on facts. This respondent admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing Reg.no.KA-40-B-0486. However the liability if any is pleaded to be subject to the terms & conditions of the policy. Further the respondent has contended that, the owner and the concerned police have not complied the mandatory provision of Sections 147, 149, 134(c) and 158(6) of M.V.Act. This respondent specifically and empathically denied the occurrence, mode and manner of accident and also SCCH-23 5 MVC-7805/2023 involvement of the vehicle in the accident. Without prejudice to the said contention it is averred that the driver of the insured vehicle did not possess valid & effective DL and further the said insured vehicle did not holding valid and effective Permit and FC. Despite knowing the said fact the owner thereof had handed over its possession to such a driver. Further it is contended that the offending Bolero pick up vehicle in question is registered as goods carrying commercial vehicle and which is construed to carry goods alone and cannot carry any passengers in violation of rules of the u/s 147 of MV Act and conditions of the policy. As the petitioner was traveling in the goods as unauthorized passenger, whose risk is not covered. On account of willful breach of the terms & conditions of the policy by the insured, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify him. Further denied all the allegation made in the petition. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of above pleadings the following issues were framed :
ISSUES
1) Whether the petitioner proves that she sustained injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on 20.06.2023 at about 7.30 p.m., near Kencharlahalli Lake bank, SCCH-23 6 MVC-7805/2023 Chintamani - Cheluru main road, Chikkaballapura District due to actionable negligence of the driver of Bolero vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-40-B-0486 ?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for ? If so, at what rate and from whom ?
3) What order or award ?
6. The petitioner examined herself as PW.1. Ex's.P1 to 29 were marked on his behalf. In order to prove the defence, the respondent No.2 Ins.Co.Ltd, got examined its official as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 & 2 documents.
7. Heard counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2 on merits. Perused the entire materials placed on record.
8. This tribunal answers to the above issues are as follows :-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.3 : As per final order for the following :
REASONS
9. ISSUE NO.1: The evidence of PW.1 and police documents indicate that on 20.06.2023, an accident had taken place and a complaint was lodged against the driver of the Mahindra Bolero bearing Reg.No.KA-40-B-0486, on the same SCCH-23 7 MVC-7805/2023 day. Based on the complaint, the jurisdictional police registered the FIR and took-up investigation. Further, during the course of investigation they got examined the aforementioned Bolero vehicle from the IMV Inspector. Ex.P.5 is the IMV report which reveals that the Bolero Pick up vehicle was badly damaged and after inspection the IMV Inspector has opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the said vehicle.
10. It is pertinent to note that in the accident except the Mahindra Bolero bearing Reg.No.KA-40-B-0486, no other vehicle is involved. Negligence means failure to exercise required degree of care which is expected of a prudent driver.
Negligence is not always a question of direct evidence. It is an inference to be drawn from the proved facts. When a motor vehicle is being driven with reasonable care, it would ordinarily not meet with an accident. Therefore the rule of res-ipsa loquitor as rule of evidence may be invoked in motor accident cases with greater frequency than in ordinary civil suits. The very fact that the driver of Mahindra Bolero bearing Reg.No.KA- 40-B-0486 came from Chintamani side, drove the vehicle at a high speed and recklessly, causing the vehicle to overturn into SCCH-23 8 MVC-7805/2023 a 20-foot ditch at a bend on the bank of Kencharlahalli Lake and caused the accident indicates negligence on the part of its driver. Hence the jurisdictional police have also filed charge sheet against him for the offences punishable under section's 279, 337, 338 & 304(A) of IPC and u/s 3, 130(3), 177, 181 of IMV Act. There is nothing on record to believe that the charge sheet filed by the police is defective or collusive. Respondent No.2 took up a contention that as on the date of accident the driver of insured Bolero vehicle was not holding valid & effective driving license. As there is violation of policy conditions, it is not liable to pay compensation. Ex.P.8 makes it is evident that after due investigation the police have filed charge sheet for the offence punishable u/s 3, 130(3), r/w 181 of IMV Act. It is therefore clear that at the time of accident the driver of offending vehicle was driving the said vehicle without possessing effective driving license. This fortifies the fact that the respondent No.1 committed breach of the terms & conditions of the policy taken by him. The effect of such breach will be later on discussed in issue No.3. Anyhow, based on the oral and documentary evidence, I hold that the actionable negligence on the part of offending vehicle driver is proved. SCCH-23 9 MVC-7805/2023
11. In addenda, in a claim for compensation u/s 166 of M.V Act, 1988, the claimant has to prove the incident only on preponderance of probabilities and proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'MANGALA RAM VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY reported in (2018) 5 SCC 656. Therefore, this Tribunal answers Issue No.1 'In the Affirmative'.
12. ISSUE NO.2 : The petitioner has not produced the wound certificate before this Tribunal. On perusal of OPD card (Ex.P.5), the petitioner has sustained the following injuries :
Split lacerated wound lateral to lateral centre of eye, abrasions over dorsum of nose, abrasion over upper lip, bloody discharge from right ear, multiple abrasions over lower limbs, split lacerated wound over left hand, split lacerated would right index injury over left fifth toe. The doctor opined that the injury is grievous in nature. The petitioner has also produced Discharge Summary (Ex.P.24) discloses that the petitioner was taken treatment as an inpatient from 24.06.2023 to 05.07.2023 for a period of 12 days. During the course of treatment he had undergone surgeries in the form of : ORIF with distal radius LCP/DCP and K-wire fixation under BPB, SCCH-23 10 MVC-7805/2023 Post OP Period was uneventful. Therefore she is entitled for compensation under the following heads :
13. LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME DUE TO DISABILITY & LOSS OF INCOME DURING LAID-UP PERIOD : The petitioner has deposed that she was doing agriculture and earning Rs.20,000/- p.m, and due to the said accident she lost her earning capacity and become disabled. In order to prove the said fact she has not produced any documents before this Court. However she has neither proved his avocation nor her earning capacity. However she has neither examined the doctor nor produced disability certificate to substantiate the fact she has become permanently disabled. Under such circumstances, it cannot be accepted that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability. Though PW.1 deposed in her evidence affidavit that due to the injuries sustained in the accident she was unable to continue avocation and thereby she sustained loss of income from this accident. So also no iota of evidence is placed on record to show that she has sustained loss of income during treatment period. Non-production of the any documents in this regard results in drawing of an inference that she has not suffered any financial loss during the period of her SCCH-23 11 MVC-7805/2023 treatment. Therefore no compensation is awarded to the petitioner under the heads of 'Loss of future income due to disability' and 'loss of income during laid-up period'.
14. ATTENDANT CHARGES, EXTRA NUTRITIOUS FOOD & CONVEYANCE CHARGES: The period of hospitalization of 12 days is proved with a help of discharge summary. During the aforesaid period the petitioner might have also spent a considerable amount towards special diet, transportation and nutrition. Considering the rate of inflation and rise in the price index, the same is quantified at Rs.1,000/- per day and a sum of Rs.12,000/- (1,000 X 12) is awarded under this head.
15. PAIN & SUFFERINGS: On account of the accidental injuries the petitioner would have had undergone pain and mental agony. Thus this Tribunal awards a sum of Rs.50,000/- under this head.
16. MEDICAL EXPENSES: As per the bills marked at Ex.P6, Ex.P.27 and Ex.P.28, the petitioner has spent Rs.5,33,536/- towards medical expenses. Nothing worthwhile was elicited during the course of her cross-examination, so as SCCH-23 12 MVC-7805/2023 to doubt the genuineness of these bills. On perusal of bills and memo of calculation, the petitioner / advocate petitioner has wrongly calculated the amount as Rs.5,33,536/-. This Court calculated the medical bills produced by the petitioner is in total 27 bills. The total amount will comes to Rs.25,945/- and the advance bills amount Rs.1,50,000/-. Further the petitioner has also produced the Ex.P.27 / IP bills for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. Hence the petitioner is entitled Rs.25,945/- and Rs.1,50,000/-. In total Rs.1,75,945/- only which is rounded off to Rs.1,76,000/- towards medical expenses.
17. LOSS OF FUTURE AMENITIES AND HAPPINESS:
The disability referred above would have necessarily caused physical deformity with which the petitioner has to live the rest of her life. Hence Rs.40,000/- is awarded under this head.
18. FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES: No evidence is brought on record to demonstrate the requirement for further treatment and the medical & incidental expenses to be incurred therefrom. In the absence of proof no amount is awarded under this head.
SCCH-23 13 MVC-7805/2023
19. The calculation table stands as follows:
1 Loss of future income due to : - Nil -
disability 2 Loss of income during laid-up : - Nil - period 3 Attendant charges, extra : 12,000-00 nutritious food & conveyance charges 4 Pain & sufferings : 50,000-00 5 Medical expenses : 1,76,000-00 6 Loss of future amenities & : 40,000-00 happiness 7 Future medical expenses : - Nil -
Total 2,78,000-00
20. REGARDING INTEREST & LIABILITY: Having regard to the nature of the claim and current bank rate of interest, this Tribunal is of the view that if interest at the rate of 6% per annum is awarded it would meet the ends of justice.
21. While answering the issue No.2 this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that, accident occurred due to the negligence of the Mahindra Bolero goods vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-40-B-
0486. The petitioners contended that the respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said vehicle hence they are jointly and severally liable to compensation. The respondent No.2 admitted the issuance of policy in respect of the offending vehicle. The respondent No.2 SCCH-23 14 MVC-7805/2023 contended that at the time of the accident the driver of Bolero vehicle was not holding driving license, hence it is violation of terms and conditions of the policy as such they are not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. In support of this contention the official of the respondent No.2 company is examined as RW.1 and through him got marked Ex.R.1 & 2 documents. In his examination-in-chief he deposed as per contentions taken by them during the course of written statement. RW.1 has stated that the driver of the insured vehicle was not possessed valid and effective DL and thereby the police have filed charge sheet against the owner and driver of the Bolero vehicle for the offences punishable u/s 3(1) and Section 180, 5(1), 181 and 177 of IMV Act. Further the documents available on record that IO has given Notice u/s 133 of IMV Act and the said notice was replied by the owner of the vehcile has admitted the involvement of the vehicle. Further in his reply the details of DL column shows that he was having DL No.KA0720050001638. He further stated in Col.No.5 that he was having LMV licence. He further stated that Transport, Private bus and motorcycle with gear licence was lapsed on 02.03.2017. In MVC.7969/2023, the copy of DL produced by SCCH-23 15 MVC-7805/2023 respondent No.1 by filing his written statement it is evident that the driver by name V. Krishna Kumar had a DL bearing No.KA0720050001628 to drive till 10.08.20025 (NT) and 02.03.2017 (TR).
22. On perusal of the reply to notice and xerox copy of DL it is evident that the said owner cum driver by name V. Krishna Kumar had a LMV DL to drive till 10.08.2025. Meaning thereby as on the date of accident the driver of the said vehicle did not have DL to drive a transport vehicle. In the light of the ratio laid down in the decision reported in 2017 AIR (SC) 3668 [Mukund Dewangan V/s Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd and others], a driver who possesses a Light Motor Vehicle licence can drive any class of vehicle which comes under LMV category. That is to say no separate endorsement is required to drive transport vehicle.
23. The provisions u/s 2 define heavy goods vehicles, heavy passenger motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle and light motor vehicle separately. Section 2(21) deals with class of Light Motor Vehicle which includes a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. or a motor SCCH-23 16 MVC-7805/2023 car or tractor or road roller, the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. The transport vehicle has been defined in section 2(47), omnibus has been defined in section 2(29). However, the transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kgs., has been included in section 2(21) of the Act of 1988. The gross vehicle weight has been defined in section 2(15). In the case of Light Motor Vehicle, the total weight of the transport vehicle or omnibus, the load certified by the Registering Authority should not exceed 7500 kgs. and in case of motor car, tractor or road roller, it is necessary that unladen weight as defined in section 2(48) of the Act of 1988 should not exceed 7500 kgs.
24. Admittedly the offending vehicle in question is a transport vehicle. The gross weight of the offending vehicle in the case on hand is 1700 kgs and the seating capacity is 2, it can be treated as Light Motor Vehicle. In view of the above decision in the present case also the driver of the offending vehicle had valid licence to drive the non-transport vehicle LMV. Therefore, he could have also drive the transport vehicle. Hence the contention of the respondents as the driver of offending vehicle had no valid licence is not considerable. SCCH-23 17 MVC-7805/2023
25. There is no dispute with regard to the issuance of commercial vehicle package policy and its validity as on the date of accident. The plea of the insurance company with whom the Bolero bearing Reg.No.KA-40-B-0486 is insured is that it is a goods vehicle and the risk of the persons traveling in the goods vehicle is not covered under the terms & conditions of the policy issued in favour of respondent No.1. Moreover the elicitation brought out during the course of cross-examination of PW.1 to the effect that ''ಅಪಘಾತ ಆದ ದಿನ ನಾನು ಭಜನೆ ಮಾಡಲು ನಮ್ಮ ಊರಿನಿಂದ ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ಊರಿಗೆ ಹೋಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆವು, ಆ ಊರಿನ ಹೆಸರು ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾವು ಹೋಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಬೊಲೆರೋ ವಾಹನ ಯಾರದು ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ವಾಹನದಲ್ಲಿ 20 ಜನ ಇದ್ದೆವು. ನಾನು ಹಿಂದೆ ಕುಳಿತಿದ್ದೆ.'' establish the fact that on the fateful day of the occurrence of accident the petitioner and other persons were traveling as unauthorized occupants in the Bolero vehicle insured by the respondent No.2. The law as regards fastening of liability on the insurer to pay compensation for the injuries / death caused to an occupant of goods carriage vehicle is well settled. The Act does not provide for carrying of persons in a goods carriage meant for carrying goods and that the owner of such a goods carriage will not be entitled to statutory indemnity against the claim made by the petitioner/ gratuitous passenger SCCH-23 18 MVC-7805/2023 / unauthorized occupant. In fact, the Act does not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of the vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any person traveling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability thereto. This is the statement of law as declared by the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd V/s Vedwati reported in 2007 ACJ 1043 (SC). Reliance is also placed on the decision reported in 2005 ACJ 721 between National Insurance Co.Ltd V/s Bommiti Subbhayamma and others, wherein the law laid down was that : 'Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 147(1) - Motor Insurance- Goods vehicle - Passenger risk - Gratuitous passenger - Liability of insurance company - Death of gratuitous passenger in truck when it met with accident - Tribunal allowed compensation but exempted the insurance company from liability
- High Court in appeal affixed liability on the insurance company
- Whether the insurance company is liable - Held : No, claimants entitled to recover award compensation from owner of vehicle'.
26. In this regard the petitioner relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (Civil) 2135/2023, between Royal Sundaram Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., v/s Smt. Honnamma and others. Wherein it is held that : SCCH-23 19 MVC-7805/2023
"16. The provision supra is identical to Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which was looked at in C M Jaya (supra), wherein a 5-Judge Bench harmonised the decisions of the 3-Judge Benches in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Shantibai, (1995) 2 SCC 539 and Amrit Lal Sood v Kaushalya Thapar, (1998) 3 SCC13 744 on the extent of liability that could be fastened on the insurer.
The Bench of 5 learned Judges held:
'8. Thus, a careful reading of these decisions clearly shows that the liability of the insurer is limited, as indicated in Section 95 of the Act, but it is open to the insured to make payment of additional higher premium and get higher risk covered in respect of third party also. But in the absence of any such clause in the insurance policy the liability of the insurer cannot be unlimited in respect of third party and it is limited only to the statutory liability. This view has been consistently taken in the other decisions of this Court.
9. In Shanti Bai case [(1995) 2 SCC 539] a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court, following the case of Jugal Kishore [(1988) 1 SCC 626: 1988 SCC (Cri) 222] has held that:
(i) a comprehensive policy which has been issued on the basis of the estimated value of the vehicle does not SCCH-23 20 MVC-7805/2023 automatically result in covering the liability with regard to third-party risk for an amount higher than the statutory limit,
(ii) that even though it is not permissible to use a vehicle unless it is covered at least under an "Act only" policy, it is not obligatory for the owner of a vehicle to get it comprehensively insured, and
(iii) that the limit of liability with regard to third- party risk does not become unlimited or higher than the statutory liability in the absence of specific agreement to make the insurer's liability unlimited or higher than the statutory liability.
10. On a careful reading and analysis of the decision in Amrit Lal Sood [(1998) 3 SCC 744] it is clear that the view taken by the Court is no different. In this decision also, the case of Jugal Kishore [(1988) 1 SCC 626: 1988 SCC (Cri) 222] is referred to. It is held:
(i) that the liability of the insurer depends on the terms of the contract between the insured and the insurer contained in the policy;
(ii) there is no prohibition for an insured from entering into a contract of insurance covering a risk wider than the minimum requirement of the statute whereby risk to the gratuitous passenger could also be covered; and SCCH-23 21 MVC-7805/2023
(iii) in such cases where the policy is not merely statutory policy, the terms of the policy have to be considered to determine the liability of the insurer.
Hence, the Court after noticing the relevant clauses in the policy, on facts found that under Section II(1)(a) of the policy, the insurer has agreed to indemnify the insured against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of death of or bodily injury to "any person". The expression "any person" would undoubtedly include an occupant of the car who is gratuitously travelling in it. Further, referring to the case of Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi [(1977) 2 SCC 745] it was observed that the said decision was based upon the relevant clause in the insurance policy in that case which restricted the legal liability of the insurer to the statutory requirement under Section 95 of the Act. As such, that decision had no bearing on Amrit Lal Sood case [(1998) 3 SCC 744] as the terms of the policy were wide enough to cover a gratuitous occupant of the vehicle.
Thus, it is clear that the specific clause in the policy being wider, covering higher risk, made all the difference in Amrit Lal Sood case [(1998) 3 SCC 744] as to unlimited or higher liability. The Court decided that case in the light of the specific clause contained in the policy. The said decision cannot be read as laying down that even though the liability of the Insurance Company SCCH-23 22 MVC-7805/2023 is limited to the statutory requirement, an unlimited or higher liability can be imposed on it. The liability could be statutory or contractual. A statutory liability cannot be more than what is required under the statute itself. However, there is nothing in Section 95 of the Act prohibiting the parties from contracting to create unlimited or higher liability to cover wider risk. In such an event, the insurer is bound by the terms of the contract as specified in the policy in regard to unlimited or higher liability as the case may be. In the absence of such a term or clause in the policy, pursuant to the contract of insurance, a limited statutory liability cannot be expanded to make it unlimited or higher. If it is so done, it amounts to rewriting the statute or the contract of insurance which is not permissible.
Xxx
14. In the premise, we hold that the view expressed by the Bench of three learned Judges in the case of Shanti Bai [(1995) 2 SCC 539] is correct and answer the question set out in the order of reference in the beginning as under: In the case of the Insurance Company not taking any higher liability by accepting a higher premium for payment of compensation to a third party, the insurer would be liable to the extent limited under Section 95(2) of the Act and would not be liable to pay the entire amount.' (emphasis supplied) SCCH-23 23 MVC-7805/2023
27. The above appeal was preferred by insurance company and the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the gratuitous passengers also covered as third parties as per the meaning Sec.147 of IMV Act. Accordingly Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal and directed to deposit the compensation with liberty to recover from the owner.
28. In view of the above decision of Hon'ble Apex Court it clears that even though gratuitous passengers or un- authorized passengers are also treated as 3 rd persons and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and liberty to recover the same from owner. In the present case admittedly insurance was valid as on the date of accident. admittedly the vehicle was goods vehicle and petitioner and other persons were traveling in the goods vehicle. Even though they are gratuitous passengers or unauthorized passengers, they are covered under the 3rd persons or third parties. Therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and liberty to recover the same from the owner.
29. During the arguments the advocate for respondent No.2 argued that in the same incident the legal heirs of the SCCH-23 24 MVC-7805/2023 deceased have filed MVC.No.7969/2023 before this Court and wherein this Court dismissed the petition against the respondent No.2. No doubt due to the same incident one Shankaramma was died and her LR's / dependents filed MVC.No.7969/2023 and wherein this Court was passed judgment and award on 14.03.2025. At that time the above decision was not available. Therefore, as per the law as on the date of the judgment and award this Court has passed. The above decision of Honble Apex Court is on 05.05.2025 i.e., after the judgment and award passed in MVC.No.7969/2023. The above cited decision supra is applicable to the present case on hand. In view of the above decision of the Honble Apex Court, also considering the beneficial object of the M.V.Act, I feel it just and proper to direct the insurer / Respondent No.2 herein to pay the award amount together with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of claim petition till realization of entire amount to the petitioner herein, who are third parties. However the respondent No.2 is at liberty to recover the said amount together with the interest so paid, from the respondent No.1 in appropriate execution proceedings. Hence this issue is answered as 'Partly in the Affirmative'.
SCCH-23 25 MVC-7805/2023
30. ISSUE NO.3 : 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 petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,78,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of claim petition till realization of the entire award amount.
The respondent No.2 is hereby directed to pay the aforesaid award amount together with interest to the petitioner within two months from the date of this order, with liberty to recover the same from the insured/respondent No.1 in appropriate execution proceedings.
After deposit of compensation amount the office is directed to release the entire share with interest of the petitioner through NEFT/RTGS by way of E-payment on proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and printout taken by him, then corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of September - 2025) (Shreyansh Doddamani) XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACJM, Bengaluru.SCCH-23 26 MVC-7805/2023
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the petitioner/s: PW.1 : Smt. Sarojamma 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 True copy of Charge Sheet Ex.P.4 True copy of IMV Report Ex.P.5 OPD card Ex.P.6 24 Medical bills of Rs.5,33,536/- Ex.P.7 Lab report (4 pages) Ex.P.8 OPD card Ex.P.9 Prescriptions (5 in Nos.) Ex.P.10 Laboratory report Ex.P.11 X-ray films (3 in Nos.) Ex.P.12 Lab reports (3 in Nos.) Ex.P.13 X-ray films (3 in Nos.) Ex.P.14 Prescriptions (4 in Nos.) Ex.P.15 Lab reports (7 in Nos.) Ex.P.16 X-ray film Ex.P.17 Referral card Ex.P.18 Lab reports (3 in Nos.) Ex.P.19 Prescriptions (2 in Nos.) Ex.P.20 Bill Ex.P.21 Lab reports (4 in Nos.) Ex.P.22 Discharge Summary Ex.P.23 Lab reports (4 in Nos.) Ex.P.24 Discharge Summary Ex.P.25 2D Eco cardiogram report Ex.P.26 X-ray film (2 in Nos.) Ex.P.27 Inpatient bill (4 pages) SCCH-23 27 MVC-7805/2023 Ex.P.28 Final receipt Ex.P.29 Notarized copy of the Aadhaar card of petitioner List of witnesses examined for the respondent/s:
RW.1 : Sri. Santhosh. R List of documents marked for the respondent/s:
Ex.R.1 Authorization letter
Ex.R.2 Insurance policy
(Shreyansh Doddamani)
XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge
& ACJM, Bengaluru.