Bangalore District Court
Santhosh S vs Marimuttu G on 14 January, 2026
KABC020281422023
IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, ACJM AND MEMBER-MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. (SCCH-13)
DATED THIS 14th DAY OF JANUARY 2026
PRESENT: Smt.Shyla S.M., B.B.M. LL.B.,
II Addl. Judge & ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru
M.V.C. 6080 OF 2023 C/w 5860 OF 2023
Petitioner in Sri. S.Santhosh
MVC.6080/2023 W/o S.Muniswamy
Aged about 18 years
R/At No.3-6, NCB Colony,
Rajiv Nagar, Tirupathi Urban,
Chittoor Dist, Andra Pradesh.
(By Sri.T.V.Ramesh, Adv.)
Petitioner in 1. Sri.M.Sivaji
MVC.5860/2023 S/o Ramachandraiah
Aged About 47 Years,
2. Smt .S.Manjula
W/o M.Sivaji
Aged About 39 Years
SCCH.13 2 MVC.6080 & 5860/2023
Both are R/at No.3-10A
Govindareddy Palle
Thodathara Mandal
Chittoor District, Andra Pradesh.
(By Sri.T.V.Ramesh, Adv.)
Vs.
Respondents in 1. G. Marimuttu
both petitions: S/o Late Jeevarathnam
Major
R/At No.4-52, Church Street,
Kotalam, Chittoor Dist,
Andra Pradesh-517 422.
(Exparte)
2. The Cholamandalam MS Gen Ins.
Co Ltd.,
Unit No.4, 9th Floor
Golden Heights complex
59th C Cross, Industrial Suburb
Rajajinagar 4th M Block
Bangalore-10.
(By Sri.K.Suresh, Adv.)
COMMON JUDGMENT
These two claim petitions are filed under Sec.166
Motor Vehicles Act 1989 seeking compensation for the
for the injuries sustained by S. Santhosh and death of
M.Vijay S/o. M.Shivaji in a road traffic accident.
SCCH.13 3 MVC.6080 & 5860/2023
2. Both cases arise out of one and the same
accident, and the respondents are common. Therefore,
to avoid repetition of facts, to ensure convenience of
the parties, and to save the precious time of the Court,
these cases are clubbed together, tried commonly, and
are being disposed of by this common judgment. The
common evidence has been led in MVC No.
6080/2023.
3. Both the petitioners have stated that on 08-07-
2023 at about 5:00 p.m., Vijay was riding the
motorcycle bearing No. AP-09-GS-5915, with Santosh
as a pillion rider, proceeding from Gujulapalli Village
towards Ramabhadrapuram Village. When they
reached near Ranga Juice Factory, Chittoor, Andhra
Pradesh, the driver of the tractor bearing No. AP-13-
UN-2308 (hereinafter referred to as the offending
vehicle) drove the same at a high speed, in a rash and
negligent manner, and dashed against the motorcycle.
4. As a result of the impact, both the rider and
the pillion rider were thrown off the motorcycle and
sustained grievous injuries. Vijay succumbed to the
injuries at the spot. Immediately after the accident, the
SCCH.13 4 MVC.6080 & 5860/2023
injured Santosh was shifted to Government Hospital,
Chittoor, and thereafter to Apollo Medical College
Hospital, Chittoor, where he was treated as an
inpatient and underwent surgery.
5. Santosh has stated that prior to the accident
he was hale and healthy, aged about 18 years, and
was a mason, earning Rs. 25,000 per month. Due to
the accidental injuries, he has suffered permanent
disability, resulting in loss of income and earning
capacity. He has therefore sought compensation of Rs.
20,00,000/- from the respondents for the injuries
sustained by him.
6. The petitioner in MVC No. 5860/2023 has
stated that after the post-mortem examination
conducted at Government Hospital, Chittoor, the dead
body of the deceased Vijay was handed over to the
petitioner, and thereafter the last rites were performed.
It is further stated that the deceased was aged about
21 years at the time of the accident, was working as a
plumber, and earning Rs. 25,000 per month. The
petitioner and the parents of the deceased have sought
SCCH.13 5 MVC.6080 & 5860/2023
compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- from the respondents
for the death of Vijay.
7. In response to the petition notice, the
Respondent No.2 has appeared before the court
through its counsel and filed the written statement in
both the petitions. The respondent No.1 has failed to
appear before the court and he was placed exparte.
8. Respondent No. 2, in its objection statement,
has admitted the issuance of an insurance policy in
respect of the offending vehicle and its validity as on
the date of the accident; however, it has contended
that its liability, if any, is subject to the terms and
conditions of the policy. It has further contended that
the owner of the offending vehicle and the concerned
police authorities have not complied with the
mandatory provisions under Sections 134(C), 159, and
160 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
9. Respondent No. 2 has denied the negligence on
the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and has
contended that the offending vehicle has been falsely
implicated in the accident. It is further contended that
the accident occurred solely due to the rash and
SCCH.13 6 MVC.6080 & 5860/2023
negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider.
Respondent No. 2 has also contended that the
petitions are bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
10. It is further contended that at the time of the
accident, both the rider and the pillion rider were not
wearing helmets, and that the rider of the motorcycle
did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. It
is also contended that the driver of the offending
vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving
licence, and that the offending vehicle was not having
a valid permit and fitness certificate at the time of the
accident.
11. Respondent No. 2 has further contended that
the compensation claimed is highly excessive and
exorbitant. It has denied the age and alleged income of
the petitioner as well as the deceased, the relationship
of the petitioners with the deceased, and the
dependency claimed. On these grounds, Respondent
No. 2 has prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
12. On the basis of above pleadings, the
following issues have been framed :-
SCCH.13 7 MVC.6080 & 5860/2023
IN MVC.6080/2023
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that he
sustained grievous injuries in a Road
Traffic Accident occurred on 8-7-2023
at about 5.00 p.m., near Ranga Juice
factory, on Bengaluru - Chennai road,
Chittoor district, Andhrapradesh, due
to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of tractor bearing No.AP-39-UN-
2308?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation ? If so, what amount?
3. What order or award?
IN MVC.5860/2023
1.Whether the Petitioner proves that
M.Vijay S/o.M.Sivaji died in a Road
traffic accident occurred on 8-7-2023
at about 5.00 p.m., near Ranga Juice
factory, on Bengaluru - Chennai road,
Chittoor district, Andhrapradesh, due
to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of tractor bearing No.AP-39-UN-
2308?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, what amount?
3. What order or award?
13. In order to substantiate the claim, the
injured Petitioner in MVC.6080/2023 and 1st
SCCH.13 8 MVC.6080 & 5860/2023
Petitioner/father of deceased in MVC.5860/2023 are
examined as PW.1 and 2. Further, Doctor is examined
as PW-3 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.1 to
17.
14. The Respondent No.2 has examined its
official as RW.1 and got marked the documents at
Ex.R.1 and 2.
15. I have heard the counsel on both sides and
have perused the material on record.
16. On the basis of evidence and material
available on record and by considering the facts, I have
answered the above issues in both the petitions as
under:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2: Partly in affirmative.
Issue No.3: As per the final order,
for the following:
REASONS
17. Issue No.1 in both petitions:- Petitioners
say that on 08-07-2023 at about 5:00 p.m., Vijay was
riding the motorcycle bearing No. AP-09-GS-5915, with
Santosh as a pillion rider, proceeding from Gujulapalli
SCCH.13 9 MVC.6080 & 5860/2023
Village towards Ramabhadrapuram Village. When they
reached near Ranga Juice Factory, Chittoor, Andhra
Pradesh, the driver of the offending tractor drove the
same at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner,
and dashed against the motorcycle.
18. As a result of the impact, both the rider and
the pillion rider were thrown off the motorcycle and
sustained grievous injuries. Vijay succumbed to the
injuries at the spot.
19. The mother of the deceased Vijay lodged the
First Information Statement before the police, which is
marked as Exhibit P2. Based on the said First
Information Statement, an FIR was registered and
marked as Exhibit P1. The rough sketch of the scene
of offence is marked as Exhibit P3, the Accident
Information Report as Exhibit P4, the IMV (Inspection
of Motor Vehicle) Report as Exhibit P5, the Wound
Certificate of the injured petitioner as Exhibit P6, and
the charge sheet is produced as Exhibit P7. The
inquest report relating to the deceased is marked as
Exhibit P10, and the post-mortem report is marked as
Exhibit P11.
SCCH.13 10 MVC.6080 & 5860/2023
20. Exhibits P10 and P11 clearly reveal that Vijay
succumbed to the injuries sustained in the road traffic
accident. Exhibit P3, the rough sketch, depicts the
scene of the accident and clearly explains the manner
in which the accident occurred. Exhibit P5, the IMV
Report, shows the nature of damage sustained by the
vehicles involved in the accident. Exhibit P6, the
wound certificate relating to PW1, discloses that he
sustained a fracture of the right wrist and fracture of
the left leg, and the doctor has opined that the said
injuries are grievous in nature.
21. Respondent No. 2 - Insurance Company has
contended that the accident occurred solely due to the
negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and not due to
any negligence on the part of the driver of the
offending tractor. In order to substantiate the said
contention, an official of Respondent No. 2 was
examined as RW1, who deposed that the accident did
not occur due to the negligence of the driver of the
offending tractor, and that the rider of the motorcycle
SCCH.13 11 MVC.6080 & 5860/2023
was riding in a rash and negligent manner, without
following traffic rules and without wearing a helmet.
22. However, RW1 has not produced any
documentary or material evidence to substantiate the
allegation that the deceased Vijay was riding the
motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner or that the
accident occurred due to his negligence. On the other
hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners has
argued that due to the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the offending tractor, the accident
occurred, as a result of which the rider of the
motorcycle succumbed to the injuries and the pillion
rider sustained grievous injuries.
23. The learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 has
denied the said contention and reiterated that there
was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of
the motorcycle. However, a perusal of the charge sheet
(Exhibit P7) clearly reveals that after completion of
investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet
against the driver of the offending tractor, specifically
attributing rash and negligent driving to him. Except
for bald allegations, there is absolutely no material on
SCCH.13 12 MVC.6080 & 5860/2023
record to dislodge or rebut the findings recorded in the
charge sheet.
24. It is a well-settled principle of law that
proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are
beneficial in nature, and the Tribunal is not required
to apply strict rules of evidence or insist upon strict
proof of rash and negligent driving as required in a
criminal trial. The evidence and material produced by
the petitioners clearly establish that the accident
occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the offending tractor, due to which the
rider and pillion rider fell down, sustained grievous
injuries, and the rider succumbed to the injuries.
Hence, this issue is answered in the Affirmative.
25. Issue No.2 in MVC.6080/2023: As per
Exhibit P6 - Wound Certificate, the petitioner
sustained a fracture of the right wrist and fracture of
the left leg, and the said injuries are certified to be
grievous in nature. Immediately after the accident, the
petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital,
Chittoor, where first aid was administered, and
thereafter he was referred to Apollo Medical College
SCCH.13 13 MVC.6080 & 5860/2023
Hospital, Chittoor, where he was treated as an
inpatient and underwent surgery.
26. It is stated that at the time of the accident,
the petitioner was working as a mason and was
earning about Rs. 25,000/- per month. Due to the
accidental injuries, he has suffered loss of income and
is unable to lead a normal life as he did prior to the
accident, resulting in loss of earning capacity.
27. In order to substantiate the claim of
disability, the petitioner examined Dr. S.A.
Somashekara, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Victoria Hospital,
Bengaluru, as PW3. PW3 deposed that the petitioner
sustained injuries in a road traffic accident and was
initially treated at Government Hospital, Chittoor.
According to PW3, the petitioner sustained a
compound Grade-II fracture of both bones of the left
leg and a closed fracture of the right distal end of the
radius. He further stated that the petitioner underwent
ORIF with LCP plating for the fractured distal radius
(right) and CRIF with interlocking nailing of the left
tibia along with Rush nailing of the left fibula.
SCCH.13 14 MVC.6080 & 5860/2023
28. PW3 has stated that he clinically and
radiologically examined the petitioner. While assessing
the disability, he found that the petitioner complained
of pain, difficulty in walking, climbing stairs, using the
right upper limb for activities of daily living, inability to
squat or sit cross-legged, and inability to work as a
tiles layer. On examination, PW3 assessed the
permanent disability at 56% to both limbs and 28% to
the whole body.
29. During cross-examination, PW3 admitted that
he did not treat the petitioner, that he examined the
petitioner only once for the purpose of disability
assessment, and that the X-ray films were taken at the
time of examination but were not produced before the
Court. He further admitted that all fractures had
united and that the implants were in situ. He also
admitted that the fracture of the radius did not involve
the joint and that there was no restriction of
movement, no loss of muscle power, and no problem of
blood circulation in the upper limb. He further
admitted that there was no instability or restriction of
movement in the forearm and that no separate
disability was attributable to the forearm.
SCCH.13 15 MVC.6080 & 5860/2023
30. With regard to the lower limb, PW3 admitted
that though the implants extended from the knee to
the ankle, he had not specifically noted any restriction
of movement from the knee to the ankle, and that
there was no problem of blood circulation, no bone
loss, and no neurological deficit. He denied the
suggestion that the petitioner was not facing any
difficulty; however, he admitted that the disability
assessed by him was only physical disability and not
functional disability.
31. It is pertinent to note that the doctor has
assessed only the physical disability. However, the
petitioner sustained fractures involving both the upper
limb and lower limb, namely, a fracture of the right
wrist and a compound Grade-II fracture of both bones
of the left leg. Injuries to both upper and lower limbs
would certainly have an impact on the functional
ability and locomotor activities of the petitioner.
32. Considering the nature of fractures
sustained, the period of treatment, and their effect on
the day-to-day activities of the petitioner, this Tribunal
is of the considered opinion that the injuries have
SCCH.13 16 MVC.6080 & 5860/2023
resulted in some degree of functional disability.
However, since PW3 has not assessed functional
disability and has only assessed physical disability,
and in view of the admissions made during cross-
examination, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to
assess the permanent functional disability at 12% to
the whole body, as against 28% assessed by PW3.
33. In the petition the age of the petitioner is
mentioned as 19 years. Ex.P.9 Aadhar card shows that
he was born on 26-07-2005, the same is considered
as age of the petitioner as on the date of accident as 18
years and the multiplier applicable to the case on hand
is 18.
34. It is the specific case of the petitioner that at
the time of the accident, he was aged about 19 years
and working as a mason and was earning ₹25,000/-
p.m. In order to substantiate his employment and
income, the petitioner has not produced any
supportive documents.
35. In the absence of concrete evidence relating
to the petitioner's income, the Tribunal is required to
adopt the notional income as per the guidelines of
SCCH.13 17 MVC.6080 & 5860/2023
Lokadalath. Considering that the accident occurred in
the year 2023, the petitioner's notional monthly
income is assessed at Rs.16,000/- for the purpose of
calculating compensation.
36. Thus this tribunal is of the opinion that the
petitioner who sustained the injuries is entitled for
compensation under the following heads:
37. Loss of future income on account of
permanent disability: Considering the petitioner's
grievous injury which has resulted in performing daily
vocational activities, this court is of the opinion that
the functional disability of 12% is reasonable and just.
38. The petitioner was 18 years old as on date of
alleged accident and the multiplier applicable to the
petitioner as per decision laid down by Hon'ble Apex
court in Sarla Verma's case is at 18. The notional
income taken as Rs.16,000 x 12 x 18 x 12/100=
Rs.4,14,720/- towards loss of future income.
39. Pain and sufferings: So far as the
compensation under non-pecuniary damages are
concerned, considering the nature of the injuries,
which has resulted in difficulty in mobility and in
SCCH.13 18 MVC.6080 & 5860/2023
performing daily vocational activities, as well as the
duration of inpatient treatment and physical and
mental suffering endured by the petitioner, this
tribunal is of the opinion that an amount of
₹.50,000/- would be just and fair compensation under
the head pain and sufferings.
40. Loss of amenities of life: undoubtedly the
petitioner is suffering from difficulties in performing
day to day activities and is facing continuous
hardship due to the disability. Therefore this tribunal
finds to appropriate to award a sum ₹.30,000/- under
head of loss of amenities of life.
41. Future medical expenses: PW-3 has stated
that the petitioner needs another surgery for removal
of implants at both sites, which cost Rs.50,000/-. But
he has not produced any estimation report. In the
absence of material evidence, it is just and reasonable
to award Rs.30,000/- towards future medical
expenses.
42. Conveyance, food and nourishment
charges: Ex.P.8 -Discharge summary shows that
Petitioner underwent inpatient treatment at The
SCCH.13 19 MVC.6080 & 5860/2023
Apollo Medical College, Chittoor from 08-07-2023 to
23-08-2023 i.e, for a period of 45 days. Therefore, it is
just and reasonable to award compensation of
₹.45,000/- under the head of conveyance, food,
nourishment and attendant charges.
43. Loss of earning during laid up period: With
regard to the loss of earnings during treatment period,
Considering the nature of the grievous injury, which
has resulted in significant difficulty in carrying out
daily vocational activities, as well as the duration of
impatient treatment and recovery, this tribunal
considers the 5 months for rest is considered . As the
monthly income of the Petitioner is already considered
as ₹.16,000/- per month, loss of earning during laid
up period would be ₹.16,000 x 5 = Rs.80,000/-.
Sl. Nature of Compensation Amount
No.
1. Loss of future earnings ₹. 4,14,720/-
2. Pain and Sufferings ₹. 50,000/-
3. Loss of amenities ₹. 30,000/-
4. Future medical expenses ₹. 30,000/-
SCCH.13 20 MVC.6080 & 5860/2023
5. Conveyance, Food, ₹. 45,000/-
Nourishment & Attendant
charges
6. Loss of income during ₹. 80,000/-
laid up period
Total ₹. 6,49,720/-
44. Issue No.2 in MVC.5860/2023: Petitioner
No.1 is the father, Petitioner No.2 is the mother of
deceased. In order to substantiate their relationship,
PW-2/father of deceased has produced the inquest
report, Aadhaar cards of the Petitioners and deceased,
they are marked at Ex.P.12 to 14. The recital of the
said record shows that deceased Vijay was the son of
Petitioner No.1 and 2. Petitioner no 1 and 2 - parents
of the deceased have stated that deceased was hale
and healthy, and was working as a plumber, earning
₹.25,000/-P.M. The Petitioner No.1 and 2 were
financially and emotionally dependent on the
deceased. Therefore, they are considered to be
dependents of the deceased and are entitled
compensation under the head of loss of dependency.
45. On perusal of records, it is found that
Petitioners have produced the Aadhar card of deceased
SCCH.13 21 MVC.6080 & 5860/2023
at Ex.P.14, which shows the year of birth as 1976 and
as such, age of the deceased is considered as 21 years
at the time of accident and appropriate multiplier
applicable is 18.
46. It is stated that deceased was a plumber,
earning Rs.25,000/-p.m. The Petitioner No.1 and 2
were financial and emotionally dependent on the
deceased. Due to his untimely death, they have
suffered immense mental shock, agony and loss of the
sole breadwinner of the family. To substantiate the
income and avocation of the deceased, the Petitioners
have not produced any documents. In the absence of
proof of income, this tribunal is of the opinion that the
notional income to be assessed as per the guidelines of
the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority. Since the
accident has been occurred in the year 2023, notional
income Rs.16,000/- per month is taken for the
assessment of compensation.
47. As the deceased was aged about 21 years,
future prospects of 40% is added on the income of the
deceased as per Pranay Sethi case. Then the income
would be ₹.22,400/-. Since, deceased was bachelor,
SCCH.13 22 MVC.6080 & 5860/2023
50% of his income shall be deducted towards his
personal and living expenses. Then the income is
₹.11,200/- The loss of dependency would be ₹.
11,200 x 12 x 18 =₹.24,19,200/-.
48. CONSORTIUM: By following the guidelines
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs- Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru
Ram & Others1, this Tribunal deems it proper to hold
that the Petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled ₹.44,000/-
each under the head of filial consortium as the
Petitioner No.1 and 2 have lost their son, who was
support for them in their old age.
49. Loss to estate: The loss to the estate is the
loss of savings by the deceased. It appears that the
Petitioner No.1 and 2 have lost their son, who was
support for them. Hence, ₹.20,000/- towards loss to
estate.
50. Transportation of dead body, funeral and
obsequies Expenses: Petitioners have claimed that
they have spent Rs.50,000/- towards transportation of
dead body, funeral & obsequies ceremony expenses.
1
SCCH.13 23 MVC.6080 & 5860/2023
By considering the facts and circumstances, it would
be proper to award ₹.16,500/- for the transportation
of dead body, funeral & other incidental expenses.
51. In all, the amount of compensation awarded
by this Tribunal to the Petitioners under various
headings is as follows :
Nature of Compensation Amount
1. Loss of dependency ₹. 24,19,200/-
2. Loss of Consortium ₹. 88,000/-
3. Loss to estate ₹. 20,000/-
4. Transportation of dead body, ₹. 16,500/-
Funeral & obsequies
Expenses
Total ₹. 25,43,700/-
52. Liability: Respondent No.2 contended that
the driver of the offending tractor was not holding a
valid and effective driving licence at the time of the
accident and that the owner, by permitting such a
person to drive the tractor, had committed a breach of
the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and
the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. In support of
SCCH.13 24 MVC.6080 & 5860/2023
the said contention, Respondent No.1 produced the
insurance policy at EX R2.
53. During the course of cross-examination, RW1
admitted that the gross vehicle weight of the tractor is
2,719 kgs and further admitted that the driver of the
insured vehicle was holding a valid Light Motor Vehicle
(LMV) driving licence as on the date of the accident.
However, Respondent No.1 contended that since the
tractor is a transport vehicle, the driver ought to have
possessed a separate endorsement to drive a transport
vehicle.
54. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in 2017 ACJ 2011 (Mukund Dewangan v.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.), wherein it was
categorically held that a person holding a valid LMV
driving licence is competent to drive a transport
vehicle, omnibus, motor car, tractor, or road roller, the
gross vehicle weight or unladen weight of which does
not exceed 7,500 kgs, and that no separate
endorsement is required on the driving licence for such
vehicles. It was further held that the licence issued
SCCH.13 25 MVC.6080 & 5860/2023
under Section 10(2)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act
continues to be valid even after the amendment
brought by Act 54 of 1994 and the Central Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989, with effect from 28.03.2001.
55. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that
the gross weight of the offending tractor is well within
7,500 kgs. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision, this
Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the driver of
the offending tractor, who was holding a valid LMV
driving licence, was competent to drive the tractor at
the time of the accident. Hence, the contention raised
by Respondent No.2-Insurance Company regarding the
absence of a valid driving licence and breach of policy
conditions holds no merit and is accordingly rejected.
56. Respondent No.1 being the owner and the
Respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending
vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the above
compensation. However, Respondent No.2 is liable to
pay compensation to the Petitioners with interest at
6% p.a. With these observation I answer Issue No.2 in
both cases partly in the affirmative.
SCCH.13 26 MVC.6080 & 5860/2023
57. Issue No.3 in both the cases:- In view of the
above discussion, reasons stated and findings given to
above Issues, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Both claim Petitions filed under Sec.166 of M.V. Act is allowed in part with cost.
Petitioner in MVC.6080/2023 is awarded compensation of ₹6,49,720/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. (except future medical expenses) from the date of petition till the realisation.
Petitioners in MVC.5860/2023 are awarded compensation of ₹25,43,700/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the realisation.
Respondent No.2 shall deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
After deposit of compensation amount in MVC.6080/2023, 25% of the amount shall be kept in FD in the name of petitioner in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank of his choice for a period of 2 years and balance 75% shall be disbursed to the petitioner through E- payment on proper identification. After deposit of amount in MVC.5860/2023, 50% each is apportioned to the Petitioner No.1 and 2.
SCCH.13 27 MVC.6080 & 5860/2023Out of the said apportioned amount in respect of Petitioner No.1 and 2, 25% each of the amount shall be kept in FD in their names in any nationalized or scheduled bank for a period of 2 years and balance 75% each of the amount shall be disbursed to them through E- payment on proper identification. Advocate fee is fixed at ₹1,000/- each.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly over the computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court dated this the 14th day of January 2026).
(SHYLA S.M.) II Addl. Judge & ACJM, Member, MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Petitioners :
PW.1 S.Santhosh PW.2 M.Shivaji PW.3 Dr.S.A.Somashekara
List of documents marked for Petitioners :
Ex.P.1 : True copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : True copy of complaint
Ex.P.3 : True copy of rough sketch
SCCH.13 28 MVC.6080 & 5860/2023
Ex.P.4 : True copy of accident information report
Ex.P.5 : True copy of IMV report
Ex.P.6 : True copy of wound certificate
Ex.P.7 : True copy of charge sheet
Ex.P.8 : Discharge summary
Ex.P.9 : T/c of Aadhaar card of PW-1
Ex.P.10 & : True copy of inquest and its translation 10(a) Ex.P.11 : True copy of PM report Ex.P.12 to : T/c of deceased and petitioner's Aadhaar cards 15 and ration card.
Ex.P.16 : OPD book Ex.P.17 : X-ray
List of witnesses examined for Respondents :
RW.1 Santhosh List of documents marked for Respondents :
Ex.R.1 : Authorization letter Ex.R.2 : Copy of policy.
(SHYLA S.M.) II Addl. Judge & ACJM Member, MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.