Bangalore District Court
Rakesh.K vs K.S.R.T.C on 2 April, 2026
SCCH 15 1 MVC No.1702/2023
KABC020077382023
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH-15
Present : SMT. RESHMA JANE RODRIGUES
M.com., LL.M.,
XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge,
ACJM, Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT-15, Bengaluru.
MVC No.1702/2023
Dated : This the 2nd day of April 2026
PETITIONER/S : 1. Rakesh K
S/o Kumar
Aged about 29 years,
2. Vismaya Gowda R
D/o Rakesh K
Aged about 2 years
(Since petitioner No 2 is minor
Rep by Natural guardian father
Rakesh R Petitioner No 1)
3. Bhagya P
W/o Mohankumar
Aged about 45 years
SCCH 15 2 MVC No.1702/2023
All are R/at
Tharikatte
VTC Bhadravathi
Hiriyur Post
Shimoga District
(By Sri. CCH, Adv.)
V/S
RESPONDENT/S: 1. The Managing Director
KSRTC
K H Road Shanthinagar
Bangalore.
(R C Owner of KSRTC Bus bearing
Reg No. KA-42-F-1999)
(By RS, Adv.)
2. Sharif B M
S/o Buden sab
Aged Major
4th Cross Kalpanakerei
Azadnagar Village /Town /city
Shivamoga PO
Shivamoga - 577201
(R C Owner of lorry bearing
Reg No. CG-04-T-6142)
(By Sri. CGS, Adv.)
3. Smt. Asha Bai P
W/o Umesh Naik
No.222, Ittige V.
Tarekerere P & T,
Chikamagalur District,
SCCH 15 3 MVC No.1702/2023
Chikamagalur - 577228
(R C Owner of the Motor Cycle
bearing KA -66-L-0100)
(By Sri. PSK, Adv.)
4. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
No.144, 2nd Floor
Shubham Complex,
M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001
Reptd By its Manager,
(Policy No. 61000031226260002795
Valid from 05-07-2022 to 04-07-2027)
(By Sri. BTR, Adv.)
:JUDGMENT:
This petition emanates from the Motor Vehicle Accident dated 05-11-2022 wherein the petitioners have sought for compensation with respect to the death of Smt. Jnaneshwari due to the impact of the accident.
2. Succinctly stated the facts germane to the lis involved in this petition are briefly summarized as follows:
It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioner No.2 is the daughter and petitioner No.3 is SCCH 15 4 MVC No.1702/2023 the mother-in-law of the deceased Jnaneshwari who died in the Road Traffic Accident on 05.11.2022 at about 2.45 p.m., when Jnaneshwari was proceeding in a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-66-L-0100 along with rider and when they reached near Kadumane Hotel, Bhadravathi bypass NH-206, Shivamoga district, at that time, the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-05-11-2022 drove the same at very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle from back side, resulting in the accident. As a result Jnaneshwari fell on the right road side, at that time, another lorry bearing Reg.No.CG-04-T-6142 dashed against Jnaneshwari. Due to which, she sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.
3. Consequently, on 05-11-2022 FIR No.0058/2022 was registered with the Bhadravathi Traffic Police station under Sec.279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC and charge sheet was filed under Sec.279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC and under Sec.187 and 196 of MV Act against the driver of the bus and lorry.
SCCH 15 5 MVC No.1702/2023
4. The Petitioners submit that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the KSRTC bus and lorry. It is submitted that the deceased was hale and healthy and aged about 24 years and was doing cloth business and was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. at the time of accident. Due to untimely death of the deceased the Petitioners have lost love, affection and support which has caused mental agony to the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners have claimed compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- with costs and interest in the interest of justice and equity.
5. In pursuance of service of the notice issued, the respondents have put in appearance and respondent No.3 has not filed any written statement.
The Respondent No.1 has filed written statement submitting as follows:
The age, avocation and income of the deceased are denied by this respondent. Further it denied that, the said accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the SCCH 15 6 MVC No.1702/2023 offending KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-42-F-1999 and contended that, the said accident occurred due to negligence of the rider of the two wheeler and driver of the lorry and therefore it is not liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners. On these grounds, Respondent No.1 has prayed to dismiss the petition against it.
6. The Respondent No.2 has filed written statement submitting as follows:
The Respondent No.2 has denied all the averments made in the petition. This accident has occurred due to the reckless and rash and negligent manner of the driver of the KSRTC bus. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. Further it contended that the Bhadravathi Traffic Police have filed under Sec.279, 338 and 304A of IPC against the drivers of bus and lorry. But it is a false case against the driver of the lorry as he has not committed any offenses much less the offenses alleged in the FIR. Hence, on these grounds, Respondent No.2 has prayed to dismiss the petition against it.
SCCH 15 7 MVC No.1702/2023
7. The Respondent No.4 has filed written statement submitting as follows:
The Respondent No.4 is the insurer of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-66-L-0100. As per FIR, charge sheet, sketch the entire negligence is on the part of the KSRTC bus and lorry. There was no negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. Hence, on these grounds, Respondent No.4 has prayed to dismiss the petition against it.
8. Vide order dated 15.02.2024 the following issues were framed by this Tribunal:-
Issues
1) Whether the Petitioners prove that Smt. Jnaneshwari K. W/o Rakesh K. died in the Road Traffic Accident that occurred 05.11.2022 at about 2.45 p.m., near Kadumane hotel, Bhadravathi Bypass NH-
206, Bhadravathi town, Shivamoga district, due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of KSRTC Bus SCCH 15 8 MVC No.1702/2023 bearing Reg.No.KA-42-F-1999 and Lorry bearing Reg.No.CG-04-T-6142?
2) Whether the Petitioners further prove that they are the legal heirs of deceased Smt. Jnaneshwari K.?
3) Whether the Petitioners are entitled for the compensation as prayed for? If yes, what is the quantum and who is liable to pay ?
4) What Order or Award ?
9. In order to substantiate the claim petition, the claimants have examined petitioner No.1 as PW1 and relied upon Ex.P1 to 32 documents and the respondent No.1, 2 and 4 got examined three witnesses as RW.1 to 3 and relied upon Ex.R1 to 8 documents.
10. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for parties in this case. Having perused the records my Issue wise findings run as under:-
SCCH 15 9 MVC No.1702/2023 Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.4 : As per the Final Order for the following :
REASONS
11. Issue No.1: Before adjudication of the issue with respect to the compensation it is quintessential to adjudicate on the issue of negligence. It is the contention of the petitioner that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-42-F-1999 and Lorry bearing Reg.No.CG-04-T-6142 (herein after referred to as offending vehicles).
12. In this regard the petitioner No.1 got himself examined as PW.1 and in his chief-examination he has deposed that on 05.11.2022 at about 2.45 p.m. Jnaneshwari was proceeding in a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-66-L-0100 along with rider near Kadumane hotel, Bhadravathi bypass NH-206, Bhadravathi town, Shivamoga district, on the left side of the SCCH 15 10 MVC No.1702/2023 road and at that time the driver of the KSRTC bus came from back side in a rash and negligent manner and endangering to human life without observing traffic rules and regulations and dashed against the motorcycle. Due to which, motorcycle went to the right side of the road at that time the lorry dashed the deceased from opposite direction due to which she fell down and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
13. The petitioner in support of his claim has in addition to describing the course of the accident in line with the facts mentioned in the complaint has relied upon Ex.P1 to 25 documents. Ex.P1 is the spot mahazar that discloses that the accident spot is at the middle of the road and road is about 30 feet wide proceeding from Tarikere towards Shivamoga and is NH-206 bypass road. The spot of the accident discloses that both the bus and motorbike rider were coming in the same direction and lorry was coming from the opposite direction and it appears that the bus has dashed the motorcycle and as a result the bike has gone to the wrong side and at the same time SCCH 15 11 MVC No.1702/2023 the lorry which was coming from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed the bike and the bike has got entangled with the lorry and has been dragged to a distance of almost 100 feet and the lorry has gone to the down to the mud road from the highway. Ex.P2 is the vehicle seizure mahazar. Ex.P3 is the IMV report which discloses the damages sustained to the vehicles sustained in the accident. Ex.P4 is the inquest mahazar and Ex.P5 is the PM report which discloses that the deceased succumbed to the injuries due to the impact of the accident. Ex.P25 is the charge sheet filed against the drivers of both the vehicles for the offenses under Sec.279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and charge sheet is also filed against lorry driver for the offenses under Sec.187 and 196 of IMV Act. The contents of the charge sheet discloses that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the KSRTC bus and lorry. In addition charge sheet is filed against the owner of the lorry for not insuring the vehicle for the offence under Sec.196 of MV Act. The contents of the charge SCCH 15 12 MVC No.1702/2023 sheet discloses that when the bus driver was horning, the bike rider came to the right side at that time the driver of the bus dashed the motorcycle and bike rider as well as deceased fell down on the right side of the road at that time the lorry which was coming from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and ran over the deceased and she succumbed to the injuries. Even assuming that the bus had only horned however it is because the bus driver was in such a hurry it resulted in the fateful accident. Since the bus driver was in a hurry the motorist was forced to go to the other side of the road resulting in the accident. Hence it is a case of contributory negligence between the drivers of both the offending vehicles.
14. As far as the manner of the accident is concerned PW.1 has deposed that his brother was riding the motorcycle and deceased Jnaneshwari was travelling as a pillion rider. He has deposed that they were travelling on Shivamoga bypass road and it is double road and the KSRTC bus was coming from behind and they were on the left side. PW.1 denied that he was SCCH 15 13 MVC No.1702/2023 trying to overtake the bus and also denied that since the bus driver applied horn he took his vehicle to the right side. It is also suggested that PW.1 lost control over the motorcycle and took his vehicle to right side resulting in the accident. On the other hand PW.1 has deposed that the bus dashed him and he went to the right side at that time the lorry came and hit the bike and went over Jnaneshwari resulting in her death. Hence it is contention of respondent No.1 that the accident did not took place due to the rash or negligent driving of KSRTC bus driver and the bus was proceeding in its side and it is public who gathered and stopped the bus. It is submitted by respondent No 1 that the accident took place only between the lorry and motorcycle and bus has got nothing to do with the accident.
15. On the other hand the respondent No.2 has cross- examined PW1 wherein PW.1 has deposed that he has not seen the accident and later visited the accident spot. It is submitted by respondent No.2 that the lorry was coming in the slope and it was transporting paddy load and coming in its direction and in SCCH 15 14 MVC No.1702/2023 the NH-206 the vehicle go at high speed and since the lorry was filled with load certainly it could not go in rash or negligent manner and bike rider suddenly came to the wrong side and hence the lorry driver could not avoid the accident. Hence it is contention taken by respondent No.2 that accident has taken place due to the negligence of bus driver as well as rider of motorcycle and not due to the negligence of the lorry driver.
16. The respondent No.2 however has stated that the lorry was loaded with paddy and it was coming slowly and under such circumstances the lorry could not have dashed the bike and dragged the bike to almost 100 feet and on the other hand would have stopped the lorry or applied brake to avoid the accident. This shows that the lorry was also at a high speed and hence he could not avoid the accident. In addition respondent No.2 themselves have taken the contention that the road being highway the vehicles go in high speed and hence even though the lorry driver was coming on his side however if the lorry was not fast it could have avoided the accident. In addition the fact SCCH 15 15 MVC No.1702/2023 that the motorcycle rider has come to the right side goes to show that it was because of the KSRTC bus that bike rider suddenly went to the right side. It is possible that the bus dashed the bike or probably was about to dash the bike and hence the bike of the petitioner went to the right side resulting in the accident. There is sufficient distance between the spot where the bus dashed the bike and the lorry dashed the bike. The spot mahazar and sketch discloses that the bike rider himself would not go to complete to wrong side unless there is some intervening factor like the bus dashing or horning to the bike to go aside. It appears that since the bus dashed the bike or to avoid being knocked down by the bus the bike went to the extreme right side and unfortunately at the same time the lorry was coming from the opposite direction and the lorry knocked the bike resulting in the accident. Hence it appears on the basis of the documents and the manner of the accident that there is negligence on the part of both bus driver as well as the lorry driver in this case. Hence it can be concluded that both the SCCH 15 16 MVC No.1702/2023 drivers are equally responsible and there is 50% negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-42- F-1999 and 50% negligence can be attributed on the part of driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.CG-04-T-6142. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 "in the Affirmative".
17. Issue No.2: It is stated in the Petition as well as in the evidence of PW.1 that the Petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioner No.2 is the daughter and petitioner No.3 is the mother-in-law of the deceased Jnaneshwari. To prove their relationship with the deceased, PW.1 has relied on Ex.P26 to 30 i.e., the Aadhaar cards of the deceased and petitioners and Ration card. Hence, they have a right to apply for compensation due to death of Jnaneshwari in road traffic accident.
18. In the case of Seema Rani & Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors 2025 the Supreme Court reiterated that the major, married, and earning children of a deceased victim, as the legal representatives, have the SCCH 15 17 MVC No.1702/2023 right to apply for motor accident compensation. Reliance can also be placed on the dictum in National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender (2020), wherein it was expounded that "major married and earning children of the deceased, being legal representatives, have a right to apply for compensation, and the Tribunal must consider the application, irrespective of whether the representatives are fully dependent on the deceased or not."
19. The Petitioner No.1 being the husband, petitioner No.2 is the daughter and petitioner No.3 is the mother-in-law of the deceased, being the legal representatives of deceased Jnaneshwari have a right to apply for compensation. As the Petitioners are the LRs of deceased Jnaneshwari and also they have proved that the death of Jnaneshwari has been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, they are entitled for just compensation. Hence I answer Issue No 2 in the Affirmative.
20. Issue No.3: Computation of compensation under the SCCH 15 18 MVC No.1702/2023 various heads is assessed as follows:
1. Loss of dependency Age factor: In order to assess the compensation under the head of loss of dependency the age, avocation and income of the deceased needs to be ascertained. In the present case, the age of the deceased is shown as 24 years. Ex.P-29 is the Aadhaar card which shows that the date of birth of the deceased is 16-
03-1997. The alleged accident has taken place on 05-11-2022. Hence, by considering Ex.P29, the age of the deceased is taken as 25 years.
21. Income and avocation: It is stated in the evidence that deceased was doing cloth business and was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. But, PW.1 has not produced any documents to prove deceased's avocation and income. Hence in the absence of evidence to prove the actual income of the deceased the notional income will have to be taken into consideration. Looking into the age of the deceased and the avocation the SCCH 15 19 MVC No.1702/2023 notional income as per the minimum wages Act and KSLSA guidelines it is just and proper to fix the notional income of the deceased as Rs.15,500/- per month. Therefore, the Annual Income of the deceased would be 15,500X 12 = 1,86,000/-. Hence for the purpose of computation of claim, the annual income of the deceased is taken as Rs.1,86,000/-.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma v. DTC, reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121 has established the golden principles in considering compensation in cases of death. Relevant part of the judgment at paras 18- 19 is reproduced hereunder:
"18. The criteria which are to be taken into consideration for assessing compensation in the case of death are: (i) the age of the deceased at the time of his death; (ii) the number of dependents left behind by the deceased; and (iii) the income of the deceased at the time of his death. TheIssues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the SCCH 15 20 MVC No.1702/2023 personal living expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in these decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay.
19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well-settled steps:
"Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependant family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a Table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said Table with reference to the age of the deceased."
Moving forward with the Issue of future prospects, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter SCCH 15 21 MVC No.1702/2023 of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680, held that Future prospects are to be awarded on the basis of:
(i) The nature of the deceased's employment; and
(ii) The age of the deceased.
Relying on Para 59.4 of Pranay Sethi (supra), while determining the income, an addition of 40% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects should be made, where the deceased is permanently employed and was below the age of 40 years.
23. At the time of the death of the deceased, he was survived by his husband, child and mother-in-law. Hence while calculating the deductions towards the personal expenses, the number of dependents at the time of the death of the deceased is to be considered. As per the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India where the number of dependents of family members is 2 to 3, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased may be deducted towards her personal and living expenses.
SCCH 15 22 MVC No.1702/2023
24. In this Petition, the deceased was aged 25 years at the time of accident. Hence, towards future prospects 40% of the income has to be added. So, 40% of Rs.15,500/- comes to Rs.6,200/-. Therefore, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.21,700/- p.m. (Rs.15,500/- + Rs.6,200/- = Rs.21,700/-). Further, as per the principles laid down in decision reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another) the multiplier applicable is 18. In Sarla Verma's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that where the number of dependent of family members is 2 to 3, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased may be deducted towards her personal and living expenses.
25. After deducting 1/3rd of the income towards her personal expenses in Rs.21,700/- it comes to Rs.14,467/- (Rs.21,700/- - 7,233/-) and multiplier applied is 18, (Rs.14,467/- x 12 x 18 = 31,24,872/-). Thus, the Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.31,24,872/- towards loss of dependency.
SCCH 15 23 MVC No.1702/2023
26. Medical expenses: The petitioners have not produced any medical bills to show any expenses incurred in the hospital. Hence the actual medical expenses incurred for the treatment of the deceased or any hospital charges are taken an Nil.
27. 'Loss of Estate', Loss of Consortium' and 'Funeral Expenses' In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra), the conventional heads, namely, 'Loss of Estate', Loss of Consortium' and 'Funeral Expenses', amount of compensation is fixed as Rs. 15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-, respectively with an increase of 10% after a period of 3 years. It is further observed in the aforesaid Judgment amount should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. The said Judgment was rendered on 30.10.2017. By applying the said observation made in the aforesaid case, since, more than 6 years lapsed from the date of Order, the consortium fixed in the said case should be enhanced from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.48,400/-. Further, the loss of estate and funeral expenses also extended to Rs.18,150/- each.
SCCH 15 24 MVC No.1702/2023 In view of the decision in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Satinder Kaur Alias Satwinder Kaur and Ors. (2021) 11 SCC 780, no compensation is to be granted under the head 'Loss of Love and Affection'.
In light of the above discussion, the claimants are awarded compensation as follows:
Sl.No. Head Amount
1 Annual Income 15,500X 12 Rs.1,86,000/-
2 Future prospects 40% of Rs.15,500/- Rs. 21,700/-
comes to Rs.6,200/-. Income of the
deceased comes to Rs.21,700/- p.m.
(Rs.15,500/ + Rs.6,200/-)
3 Multiplicand 1/3rd towards personal Rs.14,467/-
expenses of Rs.21,700/-, it comes to
Rs.14,467/-
(Rs.21,700/- - 7,233/-)
4 Multiplier (As per Sarla Verma)
applied is 18 Rs.31,24,872/-.
(Rs.14,467/- x 12 x 18)
5 Loss of dependency (A) Rs.31,24,872/-
6 Funeral expenses (B) Rs. 18,150/-
7 Loss of estate (C) Rs. 18,150/-
SCCH 15 25 MVC No.1702/2023
8 Medical expenses incurred for the ----
treatment of deceased (D)
9 Loss of consortium (E)
48,400/- X 3
Rs. 1,45,200/-
10 Total Compensation awarded Rs.33,06,372/-
(A+B+C+D+E)
In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, the petitioners are entitled to compensation amount of Rs.33,06,372/-.
28. Regarding rate of interest: As far as the rate of interest is concerned the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. RAJASTAN VS. SMT. LAXMI reported in 2018 (4) AKR 808 has held that in case of motor accident claims rate of interest awarded is 6% per annum and the Hon'ble High court has been consistently granting 6% interest in Motor Vehicles Accident Claims and Compensation cases. Hence the rate of interest is set at 6% per annum in this case.
SCCH 15 26 MVC No.1702/2023
29. Regarding Liability: This Court has arrived at the conclusion that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-05-11-2022 as well as the driver of the offending lorry bearing Reg.No.CG-04-T-6142.
The learned counsel for the petitioners have relied on the following decisions:
1. 2018 SCC online Kar 2862, between Legal Manager, Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., and another Vs. Srinivasa & others
2. (2017) 16 SCC 680, between National Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others
3. (2015) 9 Supreme Court Cases 273, between Khenyei Vs. New India Assu. Co. Ltd., & others The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has relied on the following decisions:
1. Judgment CMA No.3290 of 2012, between Thomas Vs. P. Sivasubramaniam & others.
SCCH 15 27 MVC No.1702/2023
2. 2023 ACJ 34, between P.O. Meera and another Vs. Ananda P. Naik and others The dictum and principles of law laid down in the said decisions is taken into consideration to the extent of its applicability to the facts of this case.
30. Both the drivers of the offending vehicles have got themselves examined as RW1 and RW2 and they have only shifted the blame of the accident on each other and stated that there is no fault on their side. However the bus driver has not stated what was the reason for the bike rider to go to the extreme right side of the road. It is possible that the bus dashed the bike and the bike directly fell in the front of the lorry however the fact that the lorry could not stop goes to show that the lorry was in the control of its driver pointing to the negligence of the lorry driver also. In addition by not insuring the lorry the owner of the lorry has allowed the lorry to ply over the highway which has also contributed to the negligence on the part of the owner of the lorry. The respondent No 2 has not SCCH 15 28 MVC No.1702/2023 produced any document to show that he had valid insurance to the lorry. The burden of proving existence of insurance is on the respondent no2. Hence on the basis of the charge sheet documents it can be concluded that the lorry did not have insurance at the time of the accident. It has been already held that both the offending vehicles have contributed to the accident. In this case, the Respondent No.1 is the owner cum internal insurer and hence liable to pay 50% of the compensation amount. As far as Respondent No.2 is concerned he is the owner of the offending vehicle/lorry and it is proved that his vehicle had no valid insurance as on the date of the accident. Hence respondent No 2 being the owner of the offending vehicle/lorry bearing No.CG-04-T-6142 will have to pay remaining 50% of the compensation amount to the petitioner. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decision laid down in Khenyei Vs New India Assurance Co Ltd wherein at para No 22.3 it has been observed as follows SCCH 15 29 MVC No.1702/2023 In case all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/Tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the interse liability between the joint tort feasors is only for the purpose of their inter whole of the payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/extent of their negligence has been determined by the court/Tribunal, in the main case one joint tortfeasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings.
Hence in view of the said dictum laid down in the decision referred to supra the petitioners can recover the entire compensation from respondent No1 and the respondent No 1 can thereafter 50% of the compensation amount from respondent no 2 in execution proceedings. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 is "Partly in the Affirmative".
31. Issue No.4: From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner No.1 to 3 are entitled for compensation of Rs.33,06,372/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition. In the result, I proceed SCCH 15 30 MVC No.1702/2023 to pass the following :
ORDER The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioners against the Respondents and under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Petitioner No.1 to 3 are entitled for total compensation of Rs.33,06,372/- along with cost and simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of the Award amount.
The Respondent No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioners.
The Respondent No.1 being the owner cum internal insurer of the KSRTC bus is directed to deposit the entire Award amount and interest within 60 days from the date of the Award and thereafter recover 50% of compensation amount from respondent No 2/the owner of the SCCH 15 31 MVC No.1702/2023 lorry through execution proceedings. The compensation amount awarded to the Petitioner No.1 to 3 are apportioned among them are as shown below:
1) 70% to the Petitioner No.1
2) 25% to the Petitioner No.2
3) 5% to the petitioner No.3 After deposit of the Award amount and interest by the Respondent No.1, out of the amount awarded to the Petitioner No.1, 50% of the award amount is ordered to be paid to the Petitioner No.1 by way of E-payment and after his proper identification and the remaining 50% of the award amount shall be kept in Fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner No.1 in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank for a period of 3 years of his choice.
The entire amount awarded to the Petitioner No.2 shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in her name in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank till she attains age of SCCH 15 32 MVC No.1702/2023 majority. Further, the natural guardian/father of the minor Petitioner No.2 is permitted to withdraw the interest on the said Fixed deposit periodically to the best interest of the minor Petitioner.
Since, the amount awarded to the Petitioner No.3 is meager, the entire amount awarded to Petitioner No.3 shall be released to her by way of E- payment and after her proper identification.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 2nd day of April 2026) (RESHMA JANE RODRIGUES) XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge, ACJM, Court of Small Causes & Member, MACT-15, Bengaluru.
SCCH 15 33 MVC No.1702/2023
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioners :
P.W.1 Sri. Rakesh K Documents marked as Exhibits for the Petitioners :
Ex.P.1 Spot mahazar and sketch Ex.P.2 Vehicle seizer mahazar Ex.P.3 IMV report Ex.P.4 Inquest report Ex.P.5 PM report Ex.P.6 Police notice Ex.P.7 Reply to notice Ex.P.8 & 9 Statements
Ex.P.10 to 24 Statements and further statements Ex.P.25 Charge sheet Ex.P.26 to 29 Aadhaar cards Ex.P.30 Ration card Ex.P.31 FIR Ex.P.32 Complaint Witness examined on behalf of the Respondents:
RW.1 : Sri. Nagaraj RW.2 : Mohammed Sahil RW.3 : Himendra Kartantik Simha M.N SCCH 15 34 MVC No.1702/2023
Documents marked as Exhibits for the Respondents:
Ex.R1&2 : Complaints
Ex.R3 : Photos
Ex.R4 & 5 : Fitness certificates
Ex.R6 : DL
Ex.R7 : Authorization letter
Ex.R8 : Insurance policy
(RESHMA JANE RODRIGUES)
XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge,
ACJM,Court of Small Causes &
Member, MACT-15, Bengaluru.