Bangalore District Court
Saraswathi G.N vs Shri Navin Orient Mail Speed Transport ... on 20 March, 2025
1
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
KABC020318182022
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND,
ACJM, (SCCH-7), BENGALURU.
Before: Sri. SHYAM PRAKASH
B.A.L, LLB.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bengaluru.
Dated this 20th day of March 2025
MVC. No.5928 C/w 5929, 5930 & 5932/ 2022
Petitioner Smt.Saraswathi G.N.
(in MVC 5928/2022): W/o Kumar S.N.
Aged about 36 years,
R/at No.2, 3rd Main Road,
Jakkasandra, Koramangala,
Bangalore - 560 034.
(By Sri.B.C.Vinoda, Advocate)
Petitioner Yeshwanth S.K.
(in MVC 5929/2022): S/o Kumar S.N.
Aged about14 years,
R/at No.2, 3rd Main Road,
Jakkasandra, Koramangala,
Bangalore - 560 034.
2
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
Petitioner since minor hence rep by
Natural Guardian His Mother
Smt. Saraswathi G.N.
W/o Kumar S.N.
Aged about 36 years,
(By Sri.B.C.Vinoda , Advocate)
Petitioner Smt.Jayamma,
(in MVC 5930/2022): W/o Narasimhegowda,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at Gangavadi Village,
Honakere Hobli, Nagamangala TQ,
Mandya District - 571432.
(By Sri.B.C.Vinoda, Advocate)
Petitioner 1. Javaregowda,
(in MVC 5932/2022): S/o Chikkathammegowda,
Aged about 49 years,
R/at Gangavadi Village,
Honakere Hobli, Nagamangala TQ,
Mandya District - 571432.
2.Smt. Lakshmi
W/o Javaregowda,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at Gangavadi Village,
Honakere Hobli, Nagamangala TQ,
Mandya District - 571432.
3.Sunil Kumar G.J.
S/o Javaregowda,
Aged about 21 years,
R/at Gangavadi Village,
3
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
Honakere Hobli, Nagamangala TQ,
Mandya District - 571432.
(By Sri.B.C.Vinoda, Advocate)
-VERSUS -
Common 1.Shri Navin Orient Mail Speed
Respondents: Transport Service,
Kankroli, Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
(RC Owner of Lorry No.RJ-30-GA-
6080)
(Exparte)
2.Go Digit General Insurance
Co. Ltd.,
Atlantis No.95, 4th 'B' Cross Road,
Koramangala Industrial,
Bangalore - 560 095.
(Insurer of Lorry No. RJ-30-GA-6080)
Policy No.D035439691/25082021
validity period 26.08.2021 to
25.08.2022
(By Sri.V.R.Muralidhara, Advocate)
3.Raju M.C.
S/o Channegowda,
No.19/A, 4th 'B' Cross,
Mestri Palya, Koramangala,
Bangalore - 560 034.
(RC Owner of Car Reg. No. KA-51-AD-
4
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
0313)
(By Sri.Manjunatha C.R., Advocate)
4. M/S. KTS Cars Rentals,
Ground Floor, No.428, Sri.
M.Vishweshwaraiah Layout,
Kengunte, Nagarabhavi,
Mallathahalli, Bangalore -56.
(Insured of Car Reg. No. KA-51-AD-
0313)
(Exparte)
5.United India Insurance Company
Ltd.,
Krishibhavan, 5th and 6th Floor,
Nrupathunga Road, Hudson Circle,
Bangalore - 560 001.
(Insurer of Car No. KA-51-AD-0313)
Policy No. 0704833121P113214487)
Valid period 22.03.2022 to
21.03.2023
(By Sri.K.R. Shivananda, Advocate)
*****
:COMMON -JUDGMENT:
1. In view of the order dated 18.07.2023, that all connected
cases, i.e., MVC No.5929/2022, 5930/2022 and
5932/2022 are clubbed with present matter, i.e., MVC
5
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
No.5928/2022 that arise from the same accident for a
trial.
2. The Petitioners in both case have filed these petitions
under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1989, seeking
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, Rs.10,00,000/-,
Rs.20,000,00/- & Rs.15,00,000/- respectively for the
injuries sustained by petitioner in MVC No.5928/2022,
MVC No.5929/2022 and MVC No. 5930/2022 and
death of deceased in MVC No.5932/2022 and for the
injures sustained by the Petitioner in MVC
No.7021/2022 in the road traffic accident occurred on
09.08.2022.
3 It is the case of the petitioners in both cases that, on 09-
08-2022 at about 1.00 a.m., within the jurisdiction of
Kumaraswamy Layout Traffic Police Station, near
Kanakapura Bridge Road, Mysore - Bannerghatta NICE
Road, when Accused No.2/ Abhishek G.K., driving the
offending Toyota Etios Car bearing registration No.KA-
51-AD-0313 along with the Petitioners in MVC
No.5928/2022, MVC No.5929/2022, MVC
No.5930/2022 and deceased/ Sushmitha G.J., in MVC
No.5932/2022 as inmates drove the same in high
speed, rash and negligent manner so as to endanger to
6
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
human life at that time driver /Accused No.1 driving the
offending Container Lorry bearing registration No.RJ-
30-GA-6080 from Mysore - Bannergatta NICE road in a
high speed and when the said road reduced at
Kanakapura Bridge he drove the said offending vehicle
in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human
life and suddenly taken turn towards left side from its
right side without giving any indication to its behind
vehicles as a result the driver of offending Car/Accused
No.2 who is driving behind the said offending container
lorry dashed against the left side of the hind portion of
the said offending container Lorry, as a result driver/
Accused No.2 and inmates of the offending Car
sustained grievous injuries and the said driver/
Accused No.2 was sustained grievous injuries on his
head and chest and he was shifted to Astra, St. John's,
BGS Hospital and for further treatment he was shifted
to Manipal Hospital and due to efficacious treatment on
21.08.2022 at 1-20 p.m., he died due to injuries
sustained in the alleged accident. Further the Petitioner
in MVC No.5928/2022 to MVC No.5930/2022 have
sustained grievous injuries and they were shifted to
Kaveri Hospital, Bangalore and after first aid they were
shifted to St. Johns Medical College and Hospital,
7
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
Bangalore wherein they took treatment as an inpatient
and undergone surgery. Further the
deceased/Sushmitha G.J., in MVC No.5932/2022 has
sustained grievous injuries on her head and chest and
she was died while shifting to Kaveri Hospital,
Bangalore. Further it is alleged that after the alleged
accident the driver of the offending container lorry left
the spot with the offending container lorry by without
informing the alleged incident to the police and also he
has not shifted the injured persons to the hospital.
Therefore Complainant/ C.Chowdegowda lodged
complaint before the Kumaraswamy Traffic Police
station. Accordingly, a case was registered in their
Crime No.162/2022 and prepared F.I.R. for the offence
punishable under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of
IPC R/w Section 134(A & B) R/w Section 187 of MV Act
and submitted to the jurisdictional judicial Magistrate
and the superior officers and investigation was taken up
by the Investigating Officer.
4. Further the Petitioner in MVC No.5928/2022 alleged
that prior to the alleged accident she was hale, healthy
and she was aged about 36 years and she was doing
Tailor work and earning an income of Rs.20,000/- p.m.
Due to the injuries sustained in the alleged accident she
8
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
has became permanently disabled and she is unable to
do her work normally as she was doing prior to the
occurrence of the alleged accident.
5. Further the Petitioner in MVC No.5929/2022 alleged
that prior to the alleged accident the minor Petitioner
was hale, healthy and he was aged about 14 years and
he was student, studying 9th standard. Due to the
injuries sustained in the alleged accident he has became
permanently disabled and he is unable to do his
activities normally as he was doing prior to the
occurrence of the alleged accident.
6. Further the Petitioner in MVC No.5930/2022 alleged
that prior to the alleged accident she was hale, healthy
and she was aged about 52 years and she was doing
Coolie work and earning an income of Rs.20,000/- p.m.
Due to the injuries sustained in the alleged accident she
has became permanently disabled and she is unable to
do her work normally as she was doing prior to the
occurrence of the alleged accident.
7. Further Petitioners in MVC No.5932/2022 alleged that
the Petitioner No.1 is the father, Petitioner No.2 is the
mother and Petitioners No.3 is the brother of the
deceased G.J. Sushmitha and prior to the alleged
9
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
accident the deceased was hale, healthy and she was
aged about 19 years and she was working as Computer
Teacher and earning an income of Rs.20,000/- p.m. The
petitioners have claimed compensation of
Rs.30,00,000/- under different head of loss of
dependency, funeral and obsequies expenses, loss of
filial love, loss of consortium, loss of estate.
8. The alleged accident is occurred due to fault and
negligence act of the drivers of the offending Lorry
No.RJ-30-GA-6080 and offending Toyota Etios Car
bearing registration No.KA-51-MD-0313. Respondent
No.1 is the RC owner and Respondent No.2 is the
Insurer of the offending Lorry bearing registration
No.RJ-30-GA-6080. Respondent No.3 is the RC owner,
Respondent No.4 is the insured and Respondent No.5 is
the insurer of the offending Car bearing registration
No.KA-51-AD-0313 are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to Petitioners in all cases. Hence
Petitioners filed the respective claim petitions for
seeking compensation.
9. In response to the notice, the respondents No.2, 3 and 5
are appeared through their counsels and Respondent
No.2 and 5 are filed their respective written statements,
10
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
Respondent No.4 has not filed the written statement
and the Respondents No.1 and 4 are placed exparte.
10. In the written statement of Respondents No.2/
Insurance Company have admitting that the offending
offending Lorry bearing registration No.RJ-30-GA-6080
involved in the accident were duly insured with it and
the same was valid on the date of the accident and
denying the petition averments in part and contended
that the Petitioner has not furnished the particulars of
the vehicle including the driving licence of the driver of
the offending vehicle. Further it is denied having
insured the vehicle involved in the accident. The insurer
liability is subjected to validity of the DL, permit and
other documents as per the law. Further it is alleged
that there is no compliance of provision under Section
134(C), 158 of M.V. Act. Further it is alleged that the
alleged accident is occurred due to negligence and fault
of the driver of the another offending Car bearing
registration No.KA-51-AD-0313 and no fault of the
driver of the offending Container Lorry bearing
registration No.RJ-30-GA-6080. The driver of the said
offending Lorry vehicle is not possessing valid DL, FC
and effective permit at the time of alleged accident. As
such the insurance company is not liable to pay any
11
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
compensation and in order to obtained compensation
the Petitioners have constrained to filed the present
claim petitions. Further it is denied that the age, income
and occupation of the Petitioners and deceased and the
petitions are false and frivolous in the eye of law and the
quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is
exorbitant and reserves the right u/s.170 of M.V. Act.,
and violated terms and conditions of the insurance
policy. Hence sought for dismissal of the claim petitions.
11. In the written statement of Respondent No.5/ Insurance
Company have admitting that the offending Car bearing
registration No.KA-51-AD-0313 involved in the accident
were duly insured with it and the same was valid on the
date of the accident and denying the petition averments
in part and contended that the Petitioner has not
furnished the particulars of the vehicle including the
driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
Further it is denied having insured the vehicle involved
in the accident. The insurer liability is subjected to
validity of the DL, permit and other documents as per
the law. Further it is alleged that there is no compliance
of provision under Section 134(C), 158 of M.V. Act.
Further it is alleged that the alleged accident is occurred
due to negligence and fault of the driver of the offending
12
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
Lorry bearing registration No.RJ-30-GA-6080 and no
fault of the driver of the offending Car bearing
registration No.KA-51-AD-0313. The driver of the said
offending car vehicle is not possessing valid DL, FC and
effective permit at the time of alleged accident. As such
the insurance company is not liable to pay any
compensation and in order to obtained compensation
the Petitioners have constrained to filed the present
claim petitions. Further it is denied that the age, income
and occupation of the Petitioners and deceased and the
petitions are false and frivolous in the eye of law and the
quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is
exorbitant and reserves the right u/s.170 of M.V. Act.,
and violated terms and conditions of the insurance
policy. Hence sought for dismissal of the claim petitions.
12. On the basis of above pleadings following Issues were
framed.
:: I S S U E S ::
(MVC 5928/2022)
(1) Whether petitioner proves that the
accident occurred due to rash and
negligent act of driving of Lorry
bearing No.RJ-30-GA-6080 and as a
result, she sustained injuries?
13
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
(2) Whether the Petitioner proves the age
and earnings of the petitioners as
stated in the claim petition?
(3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the
quantum? from whom?
(4) What order or award?
:: I S S U E S ::
(MVC 5929/2022)
1. Whether petitioner proves that the
accident occurred due to rash and
negligent act of driving of Lorry
bearing No.RJ-30-GA-6080 and as a
result, she sustained injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner proves the age
and earnings of the petitioners as
stated in the claim petition?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the
quantum? from whom?
4. What order or award?
:: I S S U E S ::
(MVC 5930/2022)
1. Whether petitioner proves that the
accident occurred due to rash and
negligent act of driving of Lorry
14
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
bearing No.RJ-30-GA-6080 and as a
result, she sustained injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner proves the age
and earnings of the petitioners as
stated in the claim petition?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the
quantum? from whom?
4. What order or award?
(MVC 5932/2022)
1. Whether petitioners prove that
deceased G. Sushmitha D/o
Javaregowda sustained injuries due to
rash and negligent act of driving of
Lorry bearing No.RJ-30-GA-6080
dated 09.08.2022 at about 1.00 a.m.,
and succumbed to injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioners proves the age
and earnings of the petitioners as
stated in the claim petition?
3. Whether the Petitioners prove that,
they are the legal heirs of deceased G.
Sushmitha D/o Javaregowda?
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the
quantum? from whom?
15
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
5. What order or award?
13. In order to prove the case of Petitioners, the Petitioner in
MVC No.5928 got examined herself as PW-1 and got
marked 18 documents as Ex.P-1 to P.18. The natural
guardian of the Petitioner in MVC.5929/2022 got
examined herself as PW-2 and got marked 4 documents
as Ex.P-19 to P.22. The Petitioner in MVC
No.5930/2022 got examined herself as PW-3 and got
marked Ex.P.23 to Ex.P.27, the Petitioner No.1 in MVC
No.5932/2022 got examined as PW-4 and got marked
Ex.P.28 to Ex.P.35, MRO of St. Johns Medical College
got examined as PW-5 and got marked Ex.P.36 to
Ex.P.39, MRO of Kavery Hospital got examined as PW-6
and got marked Ex.P.40 to Ex.P.43. On behalf of
Petitioner in MVC No.5928/2022 got examined
Dr.Ramesh.B as PW-7 and got marked Ex.P.44 to
Ex.P.47 and FDA, ARTO office Nagamangala got
examined as PW-8 and got marked Ex.P.48 and Ex.P.49
documents. Claims Legal Manager of Respondent No.2
Insurance Company got examined as RW-1 and got
marked Ex.R.1 and Driver of the Lorry got examined as
RW-2 and Administrative Officer of Respondent No.5/
Insurance Company got examined as RW-3 and got
marked Ex.R.2 to Ex.R.4 and closed their side.
16
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
14. Heard the arguments of both side.
15. My findings to the above referred Issues are as under;
ISSUES IN M.V.C. No.5928/2022
Issue No.1 :- Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.2 :- Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.3 :- Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.4 :- As per final order for the
following.......
ISSUES IN M.V.C. No.5929/2022
Issue No.1 :- Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.2 :- Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.3 :- Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.4 :- As per final order for the
following.......
ISSUES IN M.V.C. No.5930/2022
Issue No.1 :- Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.2 :- Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.3 :- Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.4 :- As per final order for the
following.......
ISSUES IN M.V.C. No.5932/2022
Issue No.1 :- Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.2 :- Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.3 :- In the affirmative
Issue No.4 :- Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.5 :- As per final order for the
17
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
following.......
:REASONS:
16. Issue No.1 in all case:- These petitions are filed
U/sec.166 of M.V.Act 1989 for seeking compensation
for the injuries sustained by the Petitioners in MVC
No.5928, 5929 and 5930 of 2022 and death of deceased
in MVC No.5932 of 2022 in the alleged accident.
17. The Petitioners in all cases contended that, on 09-08-
2022 at about 1.00 a.m., within the jurisdiction of
Kumaraswamy Layout Traffic Police Station, near
Kanakapura Bridge Road, Mysore - Bannerghatta NICE
Road, when Accused No.2/ Abhishek G.K., driving the
offending Toyota Etios Car bearing registration No.KA-
51-AD-0313 along with the Petitioners in MVC
No.5928/2022, MVC No.5929/2022, MVC
No.5930/2022 and deceased/ Sushmitha G.J., in MVC
No.5932/2022 as inmates drove the same in high speed,
rash and negligent manner so as to endanger to human
life at that time driver /Accused No.1 driving the
offending Container Lorry bearing registration No.RJ-30-
GA-6080 from Mysore - Bannergatta NICE road in a
high speed and when the said road reduced at
Kanakapura Bridge he drove the said offending vehicle
18
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human
life and suddenly taken turn towards left side from its
right side without giving any indication to its behind
vehicles as a result the driver of offending Car/Accused
No.2 who is driving behind the said offending container
lorry dashed against the left side of the hind portion of
the said offending container Lorry, as a result driver/
Accused No.2 and inmates of the offending Car
sustained grievous injuries and the said driver was
sustained grievous injuries on his head and chest and
he was shifted to Astra, St. John's, BGS Hospital and for
further treatment he was shifted to Manipal Hospital
and due to efficacious treatment on 21.08.2022 at 1-20
p.m., he died due to injuries sustained in the alleged
accident. Further the Petitioner in MVC No.5928/2022
to MVC No.5930/2022 have sustained grievous injuries
and they were shifted to Kaveri Hospital, Bangalore and
after first aid they were shifted to St. Johns Medical
College and Hospital, Bangalore wherein they took
treatment as an inpatient and undergone surgery.
Further the deceased/Sushmitha G.J., in MVC
No.5932/2022 has sustained grievous injuries on her
head and chest and she was died while shifting to Kaveri
Hospital, Bangalore. It is contended that the accident
19
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
drivers of the offending Lorry bearing registration No.RJ-
30-GA-608 and offending Car bearing registration
No.KA-51-AD-0313. The Respondent No.2 admitted the
alleged accident and its version is that, the alleged
accident occurred due to the negligence, fault and rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Car
bearing registration No.KA-51-AD-0313 and no fault of
the driver of the offending Lorry bearing registration
No.RJ-30-GA-608 and therefore driver of the offending
Lorry bearing registration No.RJ-30-GA-608 cannot be
held to be negligent. The Respondent No.5 admitted the
alleged accident and its version is that, the alleged
accident occurred due to fault of the driver of the
offending Lorry bearing registration No.RJ-30-GA-608
and no fault of the driver of the offending Car bearing
registration No.KA-51-AD-0313. Therefore the driver of
the said offending Car bearing registration No.KA-51-
AD-0313 cannot be held to be negligent. Further
Respondents No.1 and 5 are contended that in case of
composite negligence the claimant is entitled to sue both
or any one of the joint tortfeasor and to recover the
entire compensation as liability of joint tort-feasors is
joint and several. Further it is alleged that the drivers of
20
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
the offending vehicles are not possessing valid DL, FC
and effective permit at the time of alleged accident and
also terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As
such the insurance companies are not liable to pay any
compensation and in order to obtained compensation
the Petitioners have constrained to filed the present
claim petitions. Further it is denied that the age, income
and occupation of the injured Petitioners and deceased
and the petitions are false and frivolous in the eye of law
and the quantum of compensation claimed by the
claimants is exorbitant and sought for dismissal of the
petitions.
18. The burden to prove the framed issues lies on the
Petitioners. Hence, in order to prove their case, the
Petitioner in MVC.5928/2022 got examined herself as
P.W.1, natural guardian of the minor Petitioner in MVC
No.5929/2022 got examined as PW-2, Petitioner in
MVC No.5930/2022 got examined as PW-3 and the
Petitioner No.1 in MVC.5932/2022 got examined as
P.W.4 and they have reiterated the entire petition
averments and contentions taken in the course of
respective claim petitions in their evidence before this
Court and also produced as many as Exs.P.1 to P.35
documents respectively. Therefore, there is no necessity
21
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
to repeat those facts again. In support of the Petitioners
case and in order to substantiate their oral evidence, the
Petitioners got examined three more witnesses by name
Sri.Anil Kumar.S, Sri. Manikanta.N., Dr. Ramesh.B and
P.A. Radhakrishna as PW-5 to PW-8 respectively. I have
gone through the documents produced by the PW-1 to
PW-4. Ex.P-1 is the FIR, Ex.P.2 is the Complaint, Ex.P.3
is the spot mahazar, Ex.P.4 is the Spot Sketch, Ex.P.5
and Ex.P.6 are the IMV Reports, Ex.P.7 is the Wound
Certificate, Ex.P.8 is the Charge Sheet, Ex.P.9 to
Ex.P.12 are the Notice issued under Section 133 of MV
Act and its reply, Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.16 are the Discharge
Summaries, Ex.P.17 is the Hospital and Medical Bills ,
Ex.P.18 is the Adhar Card, Ex.P.19 is the Wound
Certificate, Ex.P.20 and Ex.P.21 are the Discharge
Summaries, Ex.P.22 is the Adhar Card, Ex.P.23 is the
Wound Certificate, Ex.P.24 and Ex.P.25 are the
Discharge Summaries, Ex.P.26 is the Hospital and
medicine bills, Ex.P.27 is the Adhar Card, Ex.P.28 is the
Inquest report, Ex.P.29 is the Postmortem report,
Ex.P.30 is the Death Intimation, Ex.P.31 is the Death
Certificate, Ex.P.32 is the Adhar Card of deceased,
Ex.P.33 to Ex.P.35 are the Adhar Cards of the respective
Petitioners.
22
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
19. In the cross-examination of PW-1/PW-2 by the counsel
for Respondent No.2 and 5 she has deposed similarly
that at near Kanakapura Bridge Road, Mysore -
Bannerghatta NICE Road, when Abhishek G.K., driving
the offending Toyota Etios Car along with the herself,
deceased Sushmitha, Jayamma, Yashwanth as inmates
at that time driver of the offending Container Lorry
drove the same from Mysore - Bannergatta NICE road in
a high speed and when the said road reduced at
Kanakapura Bridge he drove the said offending vehicle
in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human
life and suddenly taken turn towards left side from its
right side without giving any indication to its behind
vehicles as a result the driver of offending Car who is
driving behind the said offending container lorry dashed
against the left side of the hind portion of the said
offending container Lorry, as a result driver and inmates
of the offending Car sustained grievous injuries and the
said driver was sustained grievous injuries on his head
and chest and he was shifted to Astra, St. John's, BGS
Hospital and for further treatment he was shifted to
Manipal Hospital and due to efficacious treatment on
21.08.2022 at 1-20 p.m., he died due to injuries
sustained in the alleged accident. Further she and other
23
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
inmates have sustained grievous injuries and they were
shifted to Kaveri Hospital, Bangalore and after first aid
they were shifted to St. Johns Medical College and
Hospital, Bangalore wherein they took treatment as an
inpatient and undergone surgery. Further the
deceased/Sushmitha G.J., has sustained grievous
injuries on her head and chest and she was died while
shifting to Kaveri Hospital, Bangalore. Further she has
denied that she has not incurred Rs.3,00,000/- towards
her and her son Yeshwanth medical expenses. Further
she has deposed that she has not produced documents
to show that she was earning income of Rs.20,000/-
p.m., from the tailoring job. Further she has denied that
she and her son have sustained simple injuries and that
injuries are now cured and she and her son are hale and
healthy as past and they were doing their regular
activities normally. Further she has denied that the
alleged accident occurred due to fault of the driver of the
offending car. Further she has deposed that the alleged
accident occurred due to negligent and fault of the
driver of the offending container lorry. Further she
denied that she has filed the false evidence affidavit and
deposing falsely.
24
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
20. In the cross-examination of PW-3 by the counsel for
Respondent No.2 and 5 she has deposed similarly that
at near Kanakapura Bridge Road, Mysore -
Bannerghatta NICE Road, when Abhishek G.K., driving
the offending Toyota Etios Car along with the
Saraswathi, deceased Sushmitha, Yashwanth as
inmates at that time driver of the offending Container
Lorry drove the same from Mysore - Bannergatta NICE
road in a high speed and when the said road reduced at
Kanakapura Bridge he drove the said offending vehicle
in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human
life and suddenly taken turn towards left side from its
right side without giving any indication to its behind
vehicles as a result the driver of offending Car who is
driving behind the said offending container lorry dashed
against the left side of the hind portion of the said
offending container Lorry, as a result driver/ and
inmates of the offending Car sustained grievous injuries
and the said driver was sustained grievous injuries on
his head and chest and he was shifted to Astra, St.
John's, BGS Hospital and for further treatment he was
shifted to Manipal Hospital and due to efficacious
treatment on 21.08.2022 at 1-20 p.m., he died due to
injuries sustained in the alleged accident. Further she
25
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
and other inmates have sustained grievous injuries and
they were shifted to Kaveri Hospital, Bangalore and after
first aid they were shifted to St. Johns Medical College
and Hospital, Bangalore wherein they took treatment as
an inpatient and undergone surgery. Further the
deceased/Sushmitha G.J., has sustained grievous
injuries on her head and chest and she was died while
shifting to Kaveri Hospital, Bangalore. Further she has
denied that she has not incurred Rs.5,00,000/- towards
her medical expenses. Further she has deposed that she
has not produced documents to show that she was
earning income of Rs.20,000/- p.m., from the coolie
work. Further she has denied that she has sustained
simple injuries and that injuries are now cured and she
is hale and healthy as past and she is doing her regular
activities normally. Further she has denied that the
alleged accident occurred due to fault of the driver of the
offending car. Further she has denied that she is aged
about 52 years at the time of accident. Further she has
deposed that the alleged accident occurred due to
negligent and fault of the driver of the offending
container lorry. Further she denied that she has filed
the false evidence affidavit and deposing falsely.
26
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
21. In the cross-examination of PW-4 by the counsel for
Respondent No.2 and 5 he has deposed similarly that at
near Kanakapura Bridge Road, Mysore - Bannerghatta
NICE Road, when Abhishek G.K., driving the offending
Toyota Etios Car along with the Saraswathi, his
deceased dauther Sushmitha, Yashwanth as inmates at
that time driver of the offending Container Lorry drove
the same from Mysore - Bannergatta NICE road in a
high speed and when the said road reduced at
Kanakapura Bridge he drove the said offending vehicle
in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human
life and suddenly taken turn towards left side from its
right side without giving any indication to its behind
vehicles as a result the driver of offending Car who is
driving behind the said offending container lorry dashed
against the left side of the hind portion of the said
offending container Lorry, as a result driver and inmates
of the offending Car sustained grievous injuries. Further
he has deposed that the his deceased
daughter/Sushmitha G.J., has sustained grievous
injuries on her head and chest and she was died while
shifting to Kaveri Hospital, Bangalore. Further he has
deposed that he has not produced documents to show
that his daughter was earning income of Rs.20,000/-
27
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
p.m., from the computer teaching work. Further he has
denied that he has not incurred Rs.3,00,000/- towards
her funeral. Further he has denied that he is not
dependent on the income of his deceased daughter.
Further he has denied that her daughter was aged
about 25 years at the time of accident. Further he has
denied that the alleged accident occurred due to fault of
the driver of the offending car. Further he has deposed
that the alleged accident occurred due to negligent and
fault of the driver of the offending container lorry.
Further he denied that he has filed the false evidence
affidavit and deposing falsely.
22. In the examination in chief of PW.5/Sri.Anil Kumar.S he
has deposed that he is working as Medical Record officer
of St. Johns Medical College and Hospital and produced
4 documents and got marked as Ex.P36 to 39
documents. Ex.P36 is the Authorization letter, Ex.37 is
the Case Sheet in MVC No.5928/2022, Ex.P.38 is the
Case Sheet in MVC No.5929/2022 and Ex.P.39 is the
Case Sheet of MVC No.5930/2022. In the Cross
examination he denied that in order to help the
Petitioners in both cases, he has created and produced
the documents.
28
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
23. In the examination in chief of PW.6/Sri.Manikanta.N he
has deposed that he is working as Medical Record officer
of Kavery Hospital and produced 4 documents and got
marked as Ex.P40 to 43 documents. Ex.P40 is the
Authorization letter, Ex.41 is the MLC copy, Ex.P.42 is
the Police Intimation, Ex.P.43 is the Case Sheet in MVC
No.5930/2022. In the Cross examination he denied that
in order to help the Petitioners in both cases, he has
created and produced the documents.
24. In order to prove the version of respondent No.2, the
respondent No.2 got examined its Claims Legal Manager
as R.W.1 and he has reiterated the entire version
averments and contentions taken in the course of
written statement in his evidence before this Court and
also he has produced as many as Ex.R.1 document.
Therefore, there is no necessity to repeat those facts
again. I have gone through the documents produced by
the RW-1. Ex.R.1 is the Copy of the Insurance Policy. In
the cross-examination of RW-1 by the counsels for
Petitioner and respondent No.5 he has deposed similarly
that the offending lorry is duly insured with respondent
No.2 insurance company. The driver of the offending
vehicle has possessing valid and effective DL, Permit
and FC at the time of alleged accident. The said
29
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
offending lorry and car is involved in the alleged
accident. The NICE road supervisor has lodged
complaint. Further he has denied that the charge sheet
is filed falsely against the offending container lorry.
Further he has denied that the police have properly
conducted the investigation and filed the final report.
Further he has deposed that the said charge sheet is not
challenged till today. Further he has denied that the
alleged accident occurred due to fault of the driver of the
offending container lorry and no fault of the driver of the
offending car. Further he has denied that the alleged
accident occurred as per the spot sketch. Further he
has denied that in order to escape from his liability he
has filed false evidence affidavit and deposing falsely.
25. In order to substantiate the version of respondent No.2,
the respondent No.2/ insurance company got examined
the driver of the offending lorry as R.W.2 and in the
examination in chief he has deposed that the alleged
accident occurred at 1-00 a.m., and at that time he was
proceeding from Kankrahalli towards Madurai. He was
running the said vehicle in 30 - 40 kmph. On the right
side of the left side road and at that the spot the driver
of the offending car came from his behind and dashed to
the hind portion of the offending container lorry. He has
30
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
not changed his lane at the time of the alleged accident.
Due to alleged accident the hind portion of the offending
lorry is damaged. Further he has denied that the alleged
accident occurred due to his fault and no fault of the
driver of the offending car. Further he has deposed that
the alleged accident occurred due to negligent and fault
of the driver of the offending car. In the cross-
examination of RW-2 by the counsels for Petitioner and
Respondent No.5 he has similarly deposed that he has
possessing valid and effective driving licence to drive the
offending lorry vehicle. Further he has denied that he
has left the spot without informing the incident to the
police and after 8 - 9 days he brought the offending
lorry before the police and also the RC owner of the
offending vehicle was appeared before the police. At the
time of accident he was driving the offending lorry
vehicle and no cleaner present at that time. Further he
has denied that at the spot without giving any indicator
to behind vehicles he has taken sudden turn towards
right side from the left side of the road. Further he has
deposed that he has not challenged the Charge Sheet.
Further he has denied that the alleged accident
occurred due to his negligence and his fault and no
fault of the driver of the another offending car. Further
31
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
he has denied that in order to escape from the liability
he has filed false evidence affidavit and deposing falsely.
26. In order to prove the version of respondent No.5, the
respondent No.5 got examined its Administrative Officer
as R.W.3 and he has reiterated the entire version
averments and contentions taken in the course of
written statement in his evidence before this Court and
also he has produced as many as Ex.R.2 to Ex.R.4
documents. Therefore, there is no necessity to repeat
those facts again. I have gone through the documents
produced by the RW-3. Ex.R.2 is the Authorization
letter, Ex.R.3 is the copy of Insurance Policy and Ex.R.4
is the driving licence extract. In the cross-examination of
RW-3 by the counsel for Petitioner he has deposed that
the Respondent No.5/ Insurance Company has issued
package insurance policy to the offending car and
accordingly the inmates of the offending car are covered
under the insurance policy. At the time of accident the
driver of the offending car having driving licence to drive
the LMV vehicle and he has not possessing badge. In the
cross-examination of the RW-3 by the counsel for
Respondent No.2 he has deposed that he is deposing on
the basis of the police documents. Further he has
deposed that as per the police documents, near
32
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
Kanakapura Bridge Road, Mysore - Bannerghatta NICE
Road, when Abhishek G.K., driving the offending Toyota
Etios Car along with the inmates in a high speed, rash
and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, at
that time driver of the offending Container Lorry drove
the same from Mysore - Bannergatta NICE road in a
high speed and when the said road reduced at
Kanakapura Bridge he drove the said offending vehicle
in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human
life and suddenly taken turn towards left side from its
right side without giving any indication to its behind
vehicles as a result the driver of offending Car who is
driving behind the said offending container lorry dashed
against the left side of the hind portion of the said
offending container Lorry, as a result driver and inmates
of the offending Car sustained grievous injuries and the
driver and inmates Sushmitha died due to alleged
accident and the front portion of the offending car was
damaged and the hind portion of the offending lorry
sustained damaged. Further he has denied that at the
time of accident the driver of the offending lorry has not
changed his lane. Further he has denied that the alleged
accident occurred due to negligence and fault of the
driver of the offending container lorry and no fault of the
33
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
driver of the offending car. Further he has denied that in
order to escape from the liability the driver of the
offending container lorry has falsely implicated as
Accused No.1. Further he has deposed that the driver of
the offending car as arrayed as accused No.2. Further
he has denied that in order to escape from the liability
he has filed false evidence affidavit and deposing falsely.
27. On going through the Ex.P-7/Wound Certificate it is
seen that the Doctor opined that the Petitioner in MVC.
5928/2022 sustained 1) laceration 1 cms x 0.5 cms
tissue deep present over left forearm and X-ray shows 2)
fracture right mid clavicle and the injury No.1 is the
simple and injury No.2 is the grievous in nature.
28. On going through the Ex.P-19/Wound Certificate it is
seen that the Doctor opined that the minor Petitioner in
MVC. 5929/2022 sustained 1) laceration 2 cms x 1.5
cms tissue deep present over right eyebrow, 2) abrasion
1 cms x 0.5 cms present over lips and X-ray shows 3)
fracture distal end of radius and ulna and the injury
No.1 and 2 are the simple and injury No.3 is the
grievous in nature.
29. On going through the Ex.P-23/Wound Certificate it is
seen that the Doctor opined that the Petitioner in MVC.
34
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
5930/2022 sustained 1) CT scan shows right mild
pnemothorax, hemothorax and surgical emphysema, 2)
contusions in the right upper lobe and anterior segment
of right lower lobe, 3) right lower lobe collapse with
moderate effusion, 4) fracture 2nd rib posteriorly, 3rd to
6th ribs laterally with minimal displacement, 5) fracture
bilaterally superior and right inferior pubic rami fracture
and 6) fracture right sacral ala across the upper neural
foramina (zone - II) and the injuries No.1 to 6 are the
grievous in nature.
30. On going through the Ex.P-29/Postmortem report it is
seen that Doctor opined that cause of death of deceased
in MVC No.5932/2032 is due to head injury sustained
in the alleged road traffic accident.
31. On going through the Ex.P-2/Complaint it is seen that,
on 09-08-2022 at about 1.00 a.m., near Kanakapura
Bridge Road, Mysore - Bannerghatta NICE Road, when
Accused No.2/ Abhishek G.K., driving the offending
Toyota Etios Car bearing registration No.KA-51-AD-0313
along with the Petitioners in MVC No.5928/2022, MVC
No.5929/2022, MVC No.5930/2022 and deceased/
Sushmitha G.J., in MVC No.5932/2022 as inmates
drove the same in high speed, rash and negligent
manner so as to endanger to human life at that time
35
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
driver /Accused No.1 driving the offending Container
Lorry bearing registration No.RJ-30-GA-6080 from
Mysore - Bannergatta NICE road in a high speed and
when the said road reduced at Kanakapura Bridge he
drove the said offending vehicle in rash and negligent
manner so as to endanger human life and suddenly
taken turn towards left side from its right side without
giving any indication to its behind vehicles as a result
the driver of offending Car/Accused No.2 who is driving
behind the said offending container lorry dashed against
the left side of the hind portion of the said offending
container Lorry, as a result driver/ Accused No.2 and
inmates of the offending Car sustained grievous injuries
and the said driver/ Accused No.2 was sustained
grievous injuries on his head and chest and he was
shifted to Astra, St. John's, BGS Hospital and for
further treatment he was shifted to Manipal Hospital
and due to efficacious treatment on 21.08.2022 at 1-20
p.m., he died due to injuries sustained in the alleged
accident. Further the Petitioner in MVC No.5928/2022
to MVC No.5930/2022 have sustained grievous injuries
and they were shifted to Kaveri Hospital, Bangalore and
after first aid they were shifted to St. Johns Medical
College and Hospital, Bangalore wherein they took
36
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
treatment as an inpatient and undergone surgery.
Further the deceased/Sushmitha G.J., in MVC
No.5932/2022 has sustained grievous injuries on her
head and chest and she was died while shifting to Kaveri
Hospital, Bangalore. The alleged accident occurred due
to the negligence and fault of the drivers of the offending
vehicles.
32. Admittedly, the accused No.1 is the driver of the
offending Lorry and accused No.2 is the driver of the
offending Car and further admitted that, Petitioner in
MVC No.5928/2022 to MVC No.5930/2022 have
sustained injuries and deceased in MVC No.5932/2022
and driver/ accused No.2 have died due to injuries
sustained in the alleged accident caused by the
offending vehicles in question. The counsel for
Respondent No.2 claimed that the driver of offending
Lorry bearing Reg. No.RJ-30-GA-6080 is to be innocent
and further the counsel for Respondent No.2 contended
that, the alleged accident occurred due to no fault of the
driver of the offending lorry and therefore he cannot be
held to be negligent and further it is alleged that the
alleged accident occurred due to negligence and fault of
the drivers of the offending vehicles. Hence there is a
composite negligence. The counsel for Respondent No.5
37
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
claimed the driver of offending Car bearing Reg. No.KA-
51-AD-0313 to be innocent and further the counsel for
Respondent No.5 contended that, the alleged accident
occurred due to no fault of the driver of the offending
Car vehicle and therefore he cannot be held to be
negligent and the alleged accident occurred due to
negligence and fault of the driver of the offending Lorry
bearing Reg. No.RJ-30-GA-6080 hence there is no
negligence in the part of the said driver of the offending
Car. Further it is alleged that the alleged accident
occurred due to the drivers of the offending vehicles.
Hence there is a composite negligence.
33. On going through the prosecution papers, FIR, mahazar,
MVA Report, Wound Certificates, Postmortem report
Charge Sheet and case sheet and the evidence of PW-1
to PW-4 are specific to the effect that, the both drivers/
accused No.1 and 2 of the offending vehicles are the
reason for the said incident and at their instance, the
incident took place. The alleged accident was occurred
due to negligence of drivers/ Accused No.1 and 2 of the
offending vehicles and fault of the accused No.1 and 2.
The evidence of Pw.1 to PW-4 are corroborated to the
case of the prosecution and they have supported the
manner of occurrence in their evidence in the court and
38
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
the manner of occurrence is the same as alleged in the
Ex.P2/complaint. It seems that Pw.1 to PW-4 have
clearly made those versions, which could not be
shattered in cross examination. Therefore, considering
the material available on records and above discussed
aspects collectively, it is the considered opinion of the
Court that, the incident having been taken place in the
manner asserted by the prosecution and the same being
proved to have been taken place in the manner alleged
by the prosecution, that on 09-08-2022 at about 1.00
a.m., near Kanakapura Bridge Road, Mysore -
Bannerghatta NICE Road, when Accused No.2/
Abhishek G.K., driving the offending Toyota Etios Car
bearing registration No.KA-51-AD-0313 along with the
Petitioners in MVC No.5928/2022, MVC No.5929/2022,
MVC No.5930/2022 and deceased/ Sushmitha G.J., in
MVC No.5932/2022 as inmates drove the same in high
speed, rash and negligent manner so as to endanger to
human life at that time driver /Accused No.1 driving the
offending Container Lorry bearing registration No.RJ-30-
GA-6080 from Mysore - Bannergatta NICE road in a
high speed and when the said road reduced at
Kanakapura Bridge he drove the said offending vehicle
in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human
39
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
life and suddenly taken turn towards left side from its
right side without giving any indication to its behind
vehicles as a result the driver of offending Car/Accused
No.2 who is driving behind the said offending container
lorry dashed against the left side of the hind portion of
the said offending container Lorry, as a result driver/
Accused No.2 and inmates of the offending Car
sustained grievous injuries and the said driver/ Accused
No.2 was sustained grievous injuries on his head and
chest and he was shifted to Astra, St. John's, BGS
Hospital and for further treatment he was shifted to
Manipal Hospital and due to efficacious treatment on
21.08.2022 at 1-20 p.m., he died due to injuries
sustained in the alleged accident. Further the Petitioner
in MVC No.5928/2022 to MVC No.5930/2022 have
sustained grievous injuries and they were shifted to
Kaveri Hospital, Bangalore and after first aid they were
shifted to St. Johns Medical College and Hospital,
Bangalore wherein they took treatment as an inpatient
and undergone surgery. Further the
deceased/Sushmitha G.J., in MVC No.5932/2022 has
sustained grievous injuries on her head and chest and
she was died while shifting to Kaveri Hospital,
Bangalore. The alleged accident occurred due to the
40
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
negligence and fault of the drivers of the offending
vehicles. The evidence of Pw.1 to PW-4, Ex.P-1/FIR,
Ex.P-2/Complaint, Ex.P3/spot Mahazar, Ex.P-4/Spot
Sketch, Ex.P5 and Ex.P.6/MVA Report, Ex.P-7/Wound
Certificate and Ex.P-8/Charge Sheet clearly establishes
that the alleged accident occurred at the spot. It is not
in dispute as to the aspect that, the injured Petitioners
and deceased have sustained grievous injuries in the
alleged incident. Because, for the above reasons
collectively, it is clear that, the accident happened due
to negligence of the accused No.1 and 2. It is evident
that injuries noted in the Ex.P7, Ex.P.19,
Ex.P.23/Wound Certificates and Ex.P.29/ Postmortem
report would be caused by a road accident. At the same
time, it has come out in evidence that the alleged
accident was occurred due to negligence of drivers of the
offending vehicles and fault of the accused No.1 and 2.
Matters being so, the acts of the accused persons clearly
constitute the offences punishable under sections 279,
337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC R/w Section 187 of MV Act.
Thus because of such negligent act of the accused No.1
and 2/drivers of the offending vehicles, it resulted in the
injuries of the innocent injured Petitioners and death of
deceased aforesaid, as the driver/accused No.1 of the
41
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
offending Lorry drove the same in a rash or negligent
manner and so as to endanger to human life and
suddenly taken turn towards left side without giving any
indication to its behind vehicles, as a result the driver/
accused No.2 of the offending car who was driving the
same in rash and negligent manner and so as to
endanger human life and dashed on the hind portion of
the offending Lorry. Therefore, the alleged accident
occurred due to the fault of the accused No.1 and
2/drivers of the offending vehicles. Accordingly I
answered Issue No.1 in all cases partly in the
Affirmative.
34. Issue No.2 and 3 in MVC No.5928/2022:- The Learned
counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the injured
Petitioner was aged about 36 years and she was doing
tailoring work and earning income Rs.20,000/- p.m.,
and the Petitioner has incurred heavy expenses towards
medical expenditure. As such the Petitioner is entitled
for compensation under the head of pain and suffering,
mental agony, medical expenses, special diet,
conveyance, loss of future income due to disability, loss
of amenities and loss of income during laid up period
and prays to award the compensation as prayed in the
petition.
42
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
35. On the other hand the learned counsel for Respondents
No.2 and 5 insurance companies contended that even
though the Petitioner claimed that his earning was
about Rs.20,000/- p.m., the same is not established by
the claimant by producing the documents. Since the
Petitioner has not established his income, she is not
entitled for compensation towards such prospects and
hence prays dismissal of the petition.
36. The petitioner contended that as on the date of the
accident she was aged about 36 years and he was doing
tailoring work and earning income Rs.20,000/- p.m. The
petitioner relied on the Ex.P.18/Adhar Card of the
Petitioner, wherein the year of birth of the Petitioner is
shown as 1986 and this accident was took place on 09-
08-2022. Hence it is clear that as on the date of the
accident the Petitioner was aged about 36 years. Hence
the age of the Petitioner is considered as 36 years.
37. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner sustained injuries
in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its
driver/accused. In the instance case the petitioner
claimed that she was doing tailing work and earning
income Rs.20,000/- p.m. But she has not produced any
43
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
documents to prove her actual income. In the absence of
proof of income the notional income as to be assessed.
As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State
Legal Service Authority, for the accident taken place in
the year 2022, the notional income of the Petitioner
taken at Rs.14,750/-.
38. In the chief examination of PW-7/Dr.Ramesh.B.,
Orthopedic Surgeon deposed that in the alleged road
traffic accident the petitioner has sustained right
clavicle displaced fracture and the Petitioner undergone
internal fixation of right clavicle, later she underwent
displaced fracture and Petitioner complained of pain
right clavicle, difficulty ablution lift weight over the had
with right upper limb deformity of right clavicle combing
and difficulty to do routine activities and the Petitioner
sustained permanent physical disability of 24% of right
upper limb, which is 8% of whole body. In support of his
oral evidence, the doctor/PW-7 has produced
Ex.P-44/OPD Book and Ex.P-45/X-ray Film. In the
cross-examination of PW-7 by counsel for Respondent
No.2 he has deposed that he has not a treated doctor of
the Petitioner. At the time of assessing the disability he
examined Wound Certificate and Discharge Summary of
the Petitioner. Further he deposed that the Petitioner
44
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
has sustained fracture on her right shoulder. The
Petitioner has undergone surgery for her right shoulder
fracture and implants are inserted therein and now the
implants are removed. The said fracture is malunited.
Further he has denied that the disability will not come
to the fracture of the right shoulder bone. Further
denied that as he has not given treatment to the
Petitioner, he is not right person to assess the disability
of the injured Petitioner. Further he denied that in order
to help the petitioner he has assessed disability on the
higher side and filed false evidence affidavit and
deposing falsely.
39. As the occupation of the petitioner is considered as
tailor while doing tailoring work the petitioner has to do
her regular routine activities, she has to stand and sit
for long time, she has to bend, put weight on both legs,
she has to sit down while doing the work. But due to the
injuries sustained in the alleged accident the petitioner
has not in position to do work as past. The doctor has
assessed the permanent physical disability of 24% of
right upper limb, which is 8% of whole body. Hence by
considering the age, occupation, nature of injury and
the functional disability of the petitioner is considered
as 8% to the whole body.
45
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
40. With regard to the quantum, the age of the petitioner is
considered as 36 years and the income is considered at
Rs.14,750/- p.m. As per Sarala Varma's Case the
multiplier 15 is applicable and functional disability is
considered at 8%. On considering the avocation and age
of the petitioner, the total loss of future income is
calculated as (Rs.14,750/- X 12 X 15 X 8/100) =
Rs.2,12,400/-. Hence, an amount of Rs.2,12,400/- is
awarded to the petitioner under the head loss of future
income for the disability suffered by him in the accident.
41. In the alleged accident the petitioner has sustained right
clavicle displaced fracture and the Petitioner undergone
internal fixation of right clavicle, later she underwent
displaced fracture which shows that definitely the
petitioner has suffered pain due to the injuries
sustained in the accident, hence an amount of
Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering,
mental agony.
42. Further due to the injuries sustained in the accident the
petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient for a
period from 09.08.2022 to 16.08.2022, i.e., for a period
of 8 days and from 05.05.2023 to 10.05.2023, i.e., for a
period of 6 days, totally for a period of 14 days.
46
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
Therefore this court deems it appropriate to award
Rs.42,000/- (Rs.3,000/- per day X 14 days) under head
of special diet and conveyance.
43. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident the
petitioner has suffered uncomfortable in her day to day
life, hence an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded
towards loss of amenities.
44. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident the
Petitioner would require atleast six months period to
recuperate and to get back to his normal day to day
activities. Therefore the Petitioner would be entitled to
Rs.88,500/- (Rs.14,750/- x 6 months) under the head
loss of income during laid up period.
45. Further the Petitioner has produced hospital and
medical expenses as per Ex.P.17 for an amount of
Rs.70,120/-. Hence the petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.70,120/- under the head of hospital
and medical expenses.
46. The details of compensation I propose to award are as
under:
47
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
Sl. Compensation under different heads Amount in
No. (Rs)
1 Loss of future income due to disability 2,12,400-00
2 Pain and suffering, mental agony 50,000-00
3 Special diet and conveyance 42,000-00
4 Loss of amenities 1,00,000-00
5 88,500-00
Loss of income during laid up period
6 Actual medical expenses 70,120-00
Total 5,63,020-00
47. The Petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.5,63,020/-.
48. Issue No.2 and 3 in MVC No.5929/2022:- The
Learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that
the injured Petitioner was aged about 14 years at the
time of accident and he was a student pursing in 9 th
Standard at Sri Chaithanya Techno School HSR Layout,
Bengaluru and the guardian of the minor Petitioner has
incurred heavy expenses towards medical expenditure
and transportation. As such the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation under the head of pain and suffering,
mental agony, medical expenses, special diet,
conveyance and prays to award the compensation as
prayed in the petition.
48
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
49. On the other hand the learned counsel for Respondent
No.2 and 5 insurance company contended that even
though the Petitioner claimed that they have incurred
Rs.3,00,000/- towards medicine, conveyance expenses,
the same is not established by the claimant by
producing the documents. Hence the Petitioner is not
entitled for compensation towards such prospects and
hence prays dismissal of the petition.
50. The petitioner contended that as on the date of the
accident he was aged about 14 years and he was a
student pursuing in 9th Standard at at Sri Chaithanya
Techno School HSR Layout, Bengaluru. The Petitioner
relied on the Ex.P-22/Adhar Card wherein the date of
birth of the Petitioner is shown as 25.04.2008 and this
accident was took place on 09.08.2022. Hence it is clear
that as on the date of the accident the Petitioner was
aged about 14 years 3 months. Hence the age of the
Petitioner is considered as 14 years.
51. In the chief examination of PW-2/Dr.Ramesh.B.,
Orthopedic Surgeon deposed that in the alleged road
traffic accident the petitioner has sustained right
forearm both bone fracture and the Petitioner
undergone internal fixation of radius and ilna with K-
49
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
wires later underwent removal of K-wires and on
examination the Petitioner complained of pain in right
forearm, difficulty to ablution lift weight over the head
with right upper limb, writing and difficulty to do
routine activities and the radiological examination
shows fracture united and the Petitioner has sustained
permanent physical disability of 23% of right upper limb
and 8% to the whole body. In support of his oral
evidence, the doctor/PW-7 has produced Ex.P-46/OPD
Record and Ex.P-47/X-ray film. In the cross-
examination of PW-7 by counsel for Respondent No.2 he
has deposed that he has not a treated doctor of the
Petitioner. At the time of assessing the disability he
examined Wound Certificate and Discharge Summary of
the Petitioner. Further he deposed that the Petitioner
has sustained two fractures on his right hand. The
Petitioner has undergone surgery for fracture on his
right hand and implants are inserted therein and now
the implants are removed. The said fracture is united.
Further he has denied that as the injured Petitioner is
minor the disability will be reduced in future. Further he
has denied that as he has not given treatment to the
Petitioner, he is not right person to assess the disability
of the injured Petitioner. Further he denied that in order
50
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
to help the petitioner he has assessed disability on the
higher side and filed false evidence affidavit and
deposing falsely.
52. From the evidence of PW.7 it is clear that petitioner is
having pain in right forearm, difficulty to ablution lift
weight over the head with right upper limb, writing and
difficulty to do routine activities. The doctor has
assessed the permanent physical disability of 23% of
right upper limb and 8% to the whole body. As the
petitioner is a minor and he is student due to the
injuries sustained in the accident the petitioner is
having difficulty to walk, climb staircase, stand on
affected leg due to which in his future life the petitioner
may suffer from disability.
53. Further in the authority reported in (2014) 14 SCC 396
in between Mallikarjun V/s Divisional Manager, National
Insurance Company Ltd., and Another wherein it is held
that in case of a non-earning member, i.e., minor if
disability is 10% and up to 30% to the whole body
Rs.3,00,000/-, up to 60% Rs.4,00,000/-, up to 90%
Rs.5,00,000/- and above 90% it should be
Rs.6,00,000/- and for permanent disability up to 10% it
should be Rs.1,00,000/- unless there are exceptional
51
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
circumstances to take a different yardstick. In this case
on hand the doctor has assessed the disability to an
extent of 23% of right upper limb and 8% to the whole
body. In this case as per the evidence of doctor the
petitioner is having permanent physical disability to an
extent of 8% to the whole body as such by relying on the
above said authority I am of the considered view that the
Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-
under the head of pain and suffering already undergone
and to be suffered in future, mental and physical shock,
hardship, inconvenience, and discomforts etc., and loss
of amenities in life on account of permanent disability.
54. Further due to the injuries sustained in the accident the
petitioner was admitted in the hospital. Hence during
this period his parents have attended the hospital and
they have lost some earnings due to the hospitalization
of the petitioner for the injuries sustained in the
accident. Hence an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded
under the head of discomfort, inconvenience and loss of
earnings to the parents during the period of
hospitalization.
Towards pain and suffering already Rs. 1,00,000.00
undergone and to be suffered in
future, mental and physical shock,
hardship, inconvenience, and
52
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
discomforts etc., and loss of
amenities in life on account of
permanent disability
Towards discomfort, inconvenience Rs. 1,00,000.00
and loss of earnings to the parents
during the period of hospitalization
Total Rs. 2,00,000.00
Hence the petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable
compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.
55. Issue No.2 and 3 in MVC No.5930/2022:- The Learned
counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the injured
Petitioner was aged about 52 years at the time of
accident and she was doing coolie work and earning
Rs.20,000/- p.m. and the Petitioner has incurred
Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical expenditure. As such the
Petitioner is entitled for compensation under the head of
pain and suffering, mental agony, medical expenses,
special diet, conveyance, loss of future income due to
disability, loss of amenities and loss of income during
laid up period and prays to award the compensation as
prayed in the petition.
56. On the other hand the learned counsel for Respondents
contended that even though the Petitioner claimed that
her earning was about Rs.20,000/- p.m., the same is
not established by the claimant by producing the
53
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
documents. Since the Petitioner has not established her
income, she is not entitled for compensation towards
such prospects and hence prays dismissal of the
petition.
57. The petitioner contended that as on the date of the
accident she was aged about 52 years at the time of
accident and she was doing coolie work and earning
Rs.20,000/- p.m. The petitioner relied on the
Ex.P.27/Adhar Card of the Petitioner and wherein the
date of birth of the Petitioner is shown as 01.01.1970
and this accident was took place on 09.08.2022. Hence
it is clear that as on the date of the accident the
Petitioner was aged about 52 years 7 months. Hence the
age of the Petitioner is considered as 52 years.
58. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner sustained injuries
in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its
driver/accused. In the instance case the petitioner
claimed that she was doing Coolie work and earning
Rs.20,000/- p.m. But she has not produced any
documents to prove the income of the Petitioner. In the
absence of proof of income the notional income as to be
assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka
54
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
State Legal Service Authority, for the accident taken
place in the year 2022, the notional income of the
Petitioner taken at Rs.14,750/-.
59. To prove the percentage of disability sustained by the
Petitioner, neither the Petitioner got examined her
treated doctor, nor produced disability certificate, hence
the Petitioner is not entitled for any compensation under
the head future loss of income on account of permanent
disability.
60. As the occupation of the petitioner is considered as
Coolie work and in the alleged accident the petitioner
has sustained right mild pnemothorax, hemohorax and
surgical emphysema, contusions in the right upper lobe
and anterior segment of right lower lobe, right lower lobe
collapse with moderate effusion, fracture 2nd rib
posteriorly, 3rd to 6th ribs laterally with minimal
displacement, fracture bilaterally superior and right
inferior pubic rami fracture and fracture right sacral ala
across the upper neural foramina. The doctor opined
that the said injury is grievous in nature. The injuries
shows that definitely the petitioner has suffered pain
due to the injuries sustained in the accident, hence an
55
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards pain and
suffering, mental agony.
61. The Petitioner contended that, due to the injuries
sustained in the accident, he took treatment as an
inpatient at St. John's Medical College Hospital from
11.08.2022 to 23.08.2022, i.e., for a period of 13 days.
Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.39,000/- (Rs.3,000/- X 13 days) under the head
transportation, nourishment and other charges.
62. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident the
petitioner has suffered uncomfortable in her day to day
life, hence an amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded
towards loss of amenities.
63. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident the
Petitioner would require atleast six months period to
recuperate and to get back to her normal day to day
activities. Therefore the Petitioner would be entitled to
Rs.88,500/- (Rs.14,750/- p.m, X 6 months) under the
head loss of income during laid up period.
64. The Petitioner has produced Hospital and Medical Bills
as per Ex.P.26 for an amount of Rs.2,63,305/-. Hence
the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.2,63,305/- under the head of Hospital and medical
56
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
expenses. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for total
compensation under the following heads;
65. The details of compensation I propose to award are as
under:
Sl. Compensation under different Amount in
No. heads (Rs)
1 Pain and suffering, mental agony 50,000-00
2 39,000-00
Transportation, nourishment and
other charges
3 Loss of amenities 50,000-00
4 88,500-00
Loss of income during laid up period
5 2,63,305-00
Hospital and medical expenses
Total 4,90,805-00
66. The Petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.4,90,805/-.
67. Issue No.2 to 4 in MVC No. 5932/ 2022:-
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that
the deceased was aged about 19 years at the time of
accident and she was working as Computer Teacher and
earning income Rs.20,000/- p.m. The Petitioner No.1 is
father, Petitioner No.2 is the mother and Petitioner No.3
is the brother of the deceased. Further the Counsel
57
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
contended that as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Nanu Ram reported in 2018
ACJ 2782, the Petitioners being legal heirs and
dependents of deceased, each of the Petitioners are
entitled for compensation under the head of loss of love
and affection consortium and prays to award the
compensation as prayed in the petition.
68. On the other hand the learned Counsel for Respondent
No.2 and 5 contended that even though the Petitioners
claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/-
p.m., the same is not established by the claimants by
producing the documents. Since the Petitioners have not
established the income of the deceased, they are not
entitled for compensation towards future prospects and
hence prays dismissal of the petition.
69. On going through the Ex.P-33 to Ex.P.35/Aadhaar
Cards of the Petitioners and Ex.P-32/Adhar Card of the
deceased, it is seen that the Petitioner No.1 is the father,
Petitioner No.2 is the mother and Petitioner No.3 is the
brother of the deceased. Hence on the strength of Ex.P-
33 to Ex.P.35/Aadhaar Cards and Ex.P-32 it is crystal
clear that the Petitioners are the legal representatives
and dependents of the deceased.
58
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
70. The petitioners have contended that as on the date of
the accident the deceased was aged about 19 years and
she was working as Computer teacher and earning
income Rs.20,000/- p.m. The petitioners relied on the
Ex.P-32/Aadhaar Card of the deceased, wherein the
date of birth of the deceased is shown as 12.03.2003.
The accident was occurred on 09.08.2022. Hence it is
clear that as on the date of the accident the deceased
was aged about 19 years 4 month. Hence the age of the
deceased is considered as 19 years.
71. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in the road
traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicles by its drivers. In the
instance case the petitioners claimed that deceased was
was working as Computer teacher and earning income
Rs.20,000/- p.m. But they have not produced any
documents to prove the actual income of the deceased.
In the absence of proof of income the notional income
has to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the
Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, for the
accident taken place in the year 2022, the notional
income of the deceased taken at Rs.14,750/-. The
Petitioners No.1 to 3 are considered as dependents of
the deceased, in view of the law laid down by the
59
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
constitution bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR
2017 SC 5157 in the case of National Insurance Co.
Ltd., V/s Pranay Sethy and other. Thus the 40% of
the future prospects is to be added, hence the monthly
income comes to Rs.20,650/- (Rs.14,750/- + 40% =
5,900). Since the deceased is the bachelor, it is
appropriate to deduct 50% towards personal and living
expenses and remaining amount, i.e., Rs.10,325/-
(Rs.20,650/- - Rs.10,325/-) has to be taken as
his/deceased contribution to the family. The deceased
was aged about 19 years at the time of accident and
multiplier applicable to his age group is '18'. Thus the
claimants are entitled to compensation of
Rs.22,30,200/- (Rs.10,325/- x 12 x 18) on account of
loss of dependency.
72. In addition, the Petitioners are entitled to compensation
of Rs.15,000/- on account of Loss of estate and
compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of Funeral
expenses. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in 2018 ACJ 2782 in the Case of
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Nanu Ram,
Petitioner No.1 is the father, Petitioner No.2 is the
mother and Petitioner No.3 is the brother of the
deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/-
60
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
each under the head of loss of filial consortium and also
entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/- each under the
head of love and affection. Thus the Petitioners are
entitled to the following compensation:
73. The details of compensation I propose to award are as
under:
Sl.No. Compensation under Amount in (Rs)
different heads
1 Loss of dependency 22,30,200.00
2 Funeral Expenses 15,000.00
3 Loss of Estate 15,000.00
4 Loss of filial consortium 1,20,000.00
5 Loss of love and affection 1,50,000.00
Total 25,30,200.00
74. The Petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.25,30,200/-.
75. Counsel for the Respondent No.5 contended that the
driver of the offending Car has not holding effective
licence to drive LMV vehicle as such he can not drive the
transport vehicle of such class of light motor vehicle and
accordingly there is clear violation of the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy and therefore the
Respondent No.5 / Insurance Company is not liable to
61
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
pay compensation and further the counsel for
Respondent No.5 filed decision stating that the driver of
the offending lorry is solely responsible for the alleged
accident. As such there is no contributory negligence
can be attributed against the offending car. The counsel
for Petitioner relied on the decision reported in (2017) 14
SCC 663 in the case of Mukund Devagan V/s Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd., and letter of Government of
India, Ministry of Transport and Highway and contended
that Section 2(21) of the MV Act define the meaning of
light motor vehicle. Transport vehicle and amnibus, the
gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed
7500 kg, would be a light motor vehicle and also motor
car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladden weight' of which
does not exceed 7500 kg and the holder of the licence to
drive the class of light motor vehicle as provided in
section 10(2) (d) would be competent to drive a transport
vehicle omnibus, the 'gross vehicle weight' of which does
not exceed 7500 kgs or a motor car or tractor or road
roller, the unladen weight of which does not exceed
7500 kgs. In the examination in chief of PW.8/Sri.P.A.
Radhakrishna he has deposed that he is working as
FDA, ARTO office Namagnala and produced 2
documents and got marked as Ex.P48 and Ex.P.49
62
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
documents. Ex.P48 is the Authorization letter and
Ex.P.49 is the driving licence extract of deceased
Abhishek G.K. Further he has deposed that the said
RTO office issued driving licence to the deceased
Abhishek G.K. As per the said Ex.P-49/ driving licence
the deceased is having licence to drive the Motor Cycle
with gear and LMV vehicles. The unladen weight of 7500
kg comes under the said LMV category vehicles. Further
he has deposed that Ex.P-49/ driving licence is
sufficient to drive the Yellow board cars. In the cross
examination of PW-8 by the counsel for Respondent
No.5 he has deposed that the badge is provided for more
than 7500 kg weight unladen vehicle. In view of the
gazette notification of government dated 20.03.2018
such badge is not provided as on the date from
21.03.2018. They will issue badge those who are in need
and there is option to opt for badge. Further he has
denied that such badge was provided at the time of the
issuance of Ex.P.49 / Driving licence. Further he has
denied that in order to help the petitioner he is deposing
falsely. On going through the evidence of PW-8, material
available on record and position of law, the procedure to
obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of
light motor vehicle continuous to be the same as it was
63
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
and as not been changed and there is no requirement to
obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle,
and if a driver is holding driving licence to drive light
motor vehicles, he can drive transport vehicle of such
class without any endorsement to that effect and
accordingly there is no violation of the norms, terms and
conditions of the insurance policy and obviously the
question of violation of insurance policy does not arise.
76. In this matter, in view of the discussion and finding in
issue No.1 both drivers of offending vehicles are
responsible for the alleged accident and therefore
negligence can be attributed equally on both offending
vehicles. In cases of injuries due to combined negligence
of both drivers, both the owners and insurers of the
offending vehicles are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the injured Petitioner. In the instance
case the drivers of the offending Lorry bearing
reg.No.RJ-30-GA-6080 and Car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-
AD-0313 respectively were negligent equally and in case
of composite negligence the claimants are entitled to sue
both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and to recover
the entire compensation as liability of joint tortfeasors is
joint and several and it is the settled law and in this
regard I have relied the decision reported in 2015(9) SCC
64
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
273 in the case of Khenyei V/s New India Assurance Co.
Ltd., and others. Hence in view of the position of law the
respondents No.1 to 3 and 5 are jointly and severally
liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary
liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the
respondent No.2 and 5/Insurance Companies and it is
directed to deposit the compensation amount. In view of
the above discussion and position of law in the above
relied decision the respondent No.2 insurance company
is directed deposit the entire compensation along with
interest at 6% p.a., from the date of filing of the claim
petition till the payment with liberty to recover 50% of
the same in execution petition from respondent No.5.
Hence, I answer issue No.2 and 3 in MVC
No.5928/2022, 5929/2022, 5930/2022 partly the
affirmative and Issue No.2 in MVC No.5932/2022
partly in the affirmative, Issue No.3 in MVC No.
5932/2022 in the affirmative and Issue No.4 in MVC
No.5932/2022 partly in the affirmative.
77. Issue No.4 in MVC No.5928/2022 to 5930/2030 and
Issue No.5 in MVC No.5932/2022: In the result I
proceed to pass the following: -
65
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022
5930/2022 & 5932/2022
ORDER
The claim petitions filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act are hereby Partly allowed with cost.
The Petitioner in MVC No.5928/2022 is entitled for total compensation amount of Rs.5,63,020/- Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand and Twenty only) with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.
The Petitioner in MVC No.5929/2022 is entitled for total
compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.
The Petitioner in MVC No.5930/2022 is entitled for total
compensation amount of Rs.4,90,805/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Thousand Eight Hundred and Five only) with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.
The Petitioners in MVC No.5932/2022 are entitled for total
compensation amount of Rs.25,30,200/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Thirty Thousand and Two Hundred only) with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.
66SCCH - 7 M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022 5930/2022 & 5932/2022 The Respondent No.2/Insurance company is directed to the deposit the entire compensation amount within two months from the date of this order with liberty to recover the 50% of the same in execution petition from respondent No.5/Insurance Company.
In MVC No.5928/2022, after deposit entire compensation amount with interest shall be released in favour of the Petitioner under E-payment with proper verification and identification.
In MVC No.5929/2022, after deposit entire compensation amount with interest shall be released in favour of the natural guardian of the minor Petitioner under E-payment with proper verification and identification.
In MVC No.5930/2022, after deposit entire compensation amount with interest shall be released in favour of the Petitioner under E-payment with proper verification and identification.
In MVC No.5932/2022 compensation amount is apportioned as follows:-
Petitioner No.1 - Father - 45% Petitioner No.2 - Mother - 45% Petitioner No.3 - Brother - 10% 67 SCCH - 7 M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022 5930/2022 & 5932/2022 In MVC No.5932/2022, after deposit entire share of compensation amount with interest allotted to the Petitioners No.1 to 3 shall be released in their favour through E-payment with proper verification and identification.
Kept the original Judgment in MVC No.5928/2022 and its copy is kept in MVC No.5929/2022, MVC No.5930/2022 and MVC No.5932/2022.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- per each cases.
Draw the award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, and corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 20th day of March 2025) (Shyam Prakash) IX ADDL. JUDGE & ACJM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
: ANNEXURE :
List Of Witnesses Examined For Petitioner/s.
PW-1 : Smt. Saraswathi G.N.
PW-2 : Smt.Saraswathi G.N.
PW-2 : Smt.Jayamma
PW-4 : Smt.Javare Gowda
68
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022 5930/2022 & 5932/2022 PW-5 : Anil Kumar S PW-6 : Sri.Manikanta N PW-7 : Dr.Ramesh B PW-8 : P.A.Radhakrishna List of exhibited documents marked for Petitioner/s.
Ex.P-1 : True copy of FIR Ex.P-2 : True copy of Complaint Ex.P-3 : True copy of spot mahazar Ex.P-4 : True copy of spot sketch Ex.P-5 & 6 : IMV report Ex.P-7 : Wound certificate Ex.P-8 : Charge sheet Ex.P-9 : U/Sec.133 of MV Act notice and reply to 12 Ex.P-13 : Discharge summary to 16 Ex.P-17 : Hospital and medicine bills Ex.P-18 : Aadhaar Card Ex.P-19 : Wound certificate Ex.P-20-21 : Discharge summary Ex.P-22 : Aadhaar Card Ex.P-23 : Wound Certificate Ex.P-24 : Discharge summary & 25 Ex.P-26 : Hospital and Medicine bills Ex.P-27 : Aadhaar Card Ex.P-28 : Inquest report 69 SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022 5930/2022 & 5932/2022 Ex.P-29 : PM Report Ex.P-30 : Death intimation Ex.P-31 : Death certificate Ex.P-32 : Aadhaar Card of deceased Ex.P-33 : Aadhaar Card of petitioners to 35 Ex.P-36 : Authorization letter Ex.P-37 : Case sheet in MVC NO.5928/2022 Ex.P-38 : Case Sheet in MVC NO.5929/2022 Ex.P-39 : Case sheet in MVC No. 5930/2022 Ex.P-40 : Authorization letter Ex.P-41 : MLC register extract Ex.P-42 : Police intimation Ex.P-43 : Case sheet in MVC No. 5930/2022 Ex.P-44 : OPD book in MVC NO. 5928/2022 Ex.P-45 : X-ray Ex.P-46 : OPD book in MVC NO.5929/2022 Ex.P-47 : X-ray Ex.P-48 : Authorization letter Ex.P-49 : DL Extract of Abishek G.K. List Of Witnesses Examined For Respondent/s.
RW-1 : Sachin Honnannavar
RW-2 : Mehako
RW-3 : Saraswathi G.N.
70
SCCH - 7
M.V.C.No.5928/2022, 5929/2022 5930/2022 & 5932/2022 List of exhibited documents marked for Respondent/s. Ex.R-1 : Copy of Insurance Ex.R-2 : Authorization letter Ex.R-3 : Copy of Insurance Ex.R-4 : Driving Licence extract (Shyam Prakash) IX ADDL. JUDGE & ACJM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.Digitally signed by
SHYAMPRAKASH SHYAMPRAKASH Date: 2025.03.21 11:50:27 +0530