Bangalore District Court
Muniswamy Gowda K Alias Munishame Gowda vs Kemparaja on 18 September, 2025
KABC020135332016
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU.
(SCCH-_25)
-: PRESENT:-
PRESENT: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA. R,
B.A.L, LL.B.,
XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025
MVC No.7748/2016
PETITIONER: Muniswamy Gowda K. @
Munishame Gowda,
Aged aboaut 43 years,
S/o Kempanna,
R/at No.173,
Attibele village, Sulibele
Hobli, Hoskote Taluk,
Bengaluru District.
(By Sri.Reeyazulla Sharief,
Advocate.)
V/S
RESPONDENTS: 1.Sri.Kemparaja
(Major in age)
S/o. Kempanrangaiah,
R/at No.39, Garudagallu
village, Sasalu Hobli,
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.7748/2016
Doddaballapura Taluk,
Bengaluru.
2. The Regional Manger,
M/S. United India
Insurance company Ltd.,
III Party Hub, 5th Floor,
Krushibhavan Buildings,
Bengaluru.
(R.1 Ex-parte
R.2- By Sri.D.N.Manjunatha
Gupta, Advocate)
......
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner has filed this petition under Sec.166 of I.M.V. Act, seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the damages caused to his Mahindra Bollero Goods Tempo bearing No.KA-53-B-6155 in a road traffic accident dated 09.06.2015.
2. The case of the Petitioner in brief is that, On 09.06.2015 at about 4.50pm. his driver was driving the Goods Tempo bearing No.KA-53-B-6155 near Kondappagarahalli village, Shidlagatta taluk, a Private Bus SCCH-25 3 MVC No.7748/2016 bearing Reg.No.KA-16-A-1539 came with high speed, driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner so as to endangering human life, came from opposite direction and dashed against the Mahindra Bollero Goods Tempo. Due to impact, both the vehicles were badly damaged.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that, the accident occurred due to the sole rash and negligent act of the Driver of the Private Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-16-A-1539 and Goods Tempo is badly damaged and it became totally loss and there is no chance of using the vehicle after repair also. In respect of that, the petitioner was engaged with one Surveyor and Loss Assessor and he has assessed that the entire vehicle has badly damaged and there is no chance of using the vehicle in future. Further stated that, prior to the date of accident, petitioner was using the vehicle for hire purpose and he was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month and being utilized for his day to day life and repaying the loan and there is no other source of income apart from SCCH-25 4 MVC No.7748/2016 the earnings from the said Goods Tempo. The Petitioner submits that there was loan on the said vehicle and he is not able to pay the EMI also and hence petitioner is put into great hardship and loss. The Dibburahalli Police have registered a case against the driver of the Private Bus driver. Therefore, respondents being the RC owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
4. In response to the notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondent No.2 appeared and filed written statement. In spite of due service of notice, the respondent No.1 did not appear before this court hence, placed ex-parte.
5. The written statement of the respondent No.2 is as follows:
It has denied all the petition averments and also denied the issuance of policy in favour of the respondent No.1 and in respect of the Private Bus bearing No.KA-16-A- 1539. There is a delay on lodging the complaint. Further SCCH-25 5 MVC No.7748/2016 stated that, the driver of the Mahindra Bolero did not possess a valid driving license and not having valid insurance as on the date of accident. Further the private bus did not possess a valid Permit, FC as on the date of accident. There is a non joinder of necessary parties for adjudication. Further denied the manner of accident. The petitioner vehicle is mainly responsible for the cause of the accident. The offending vehicle is not at all involved in the alleged accident. The accident caused due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the Mahindra Bolero Goods Tempo bearing Reg.No.KA-53-B-6155. There is no negligence of the private bus. Further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. On the above rival contentions of the parties, this court has framed the following Issues:-
1.Whether the Petitioner proves that, on 09.06.2015 at about 4.50 p.m. when his driver was proceeding in a Mahindra Bollero Goods Tempo bearing SCCH-25 6 MVC No.7748/2016 Reg.No.KA-53-B-6155 near Kondappagarahalli village, Shidlaghattta Taluk, Chickballapura, the driver of private Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-16-A-
1539 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to his Tempo and caused damages to the same?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for Compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom?
3. What Order or Award?
7. The Petitioner in order to prove his case, has examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Eighteen documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.18. He has got examined Mr.Subramanya K.B. - Surveyor as PW.2 and not produced any documents on his behalf. He has also got examined Mr.Jafer Sadiq - Senior Assistant Manager, Rayal Sundaram Policy as PW.3 and got marked Ex.P.19. On the other hand the Respondent No.2 has got examined Mr.P.G.Pandurangashetty - RTO as RW.1 and got marked Four documents as per Ex.R.1 to R.4. One Mr.Raghavendra G.K. got examined as RW.2 and did not produce any SCCH-25 7 MVC No.7748/2016 documents. One Mr.Krishnappa - SDA got examined as RW.3 and got produced Three documents as per Exs.R.5 to R.7 and Mr.Kiran Kumar.K - SDA got examined as RW.4 and got produced Eight documents as per Exs.R.8 to R.15 . The Respondent No.2 got examined Ms.Shanthakumari J - Deputy Manager as RW.5 and got produced Four documents as per Exs.R.16 to R.19 and closed their side.
8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the materials on record.
The counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted the written arguments.
The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:
1. 2016 ACJ 2145 : Ketal Singh Vs. Narinder Kumar and Ors.
2. 2013 ACJ 1213 : National Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Rajender Giri and Ors.
The counsel for the Respondent No.2 has relied upon the following decisions:
SCCH-25 8 MVC No.7748/2016
1. WP No.1682/2021 (with regard to interest in this case) : Sri. Muniswamy Gowda K @ Munishame Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.
2. 2010 ACJ 1441 : KSRTC Vs. George Ninum
3. 2010 ACJ 1441 : Kamala MangaLAL Vayani and Ors. Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd., & Ors.
4. MFA No.7723/2011 : Smt. Kempamma Vs. Ramesh and Anr.
5. MFA No.8470/2012 (MVC): Sri. Abhishek Vs. Sri. K.B.Thippeswamy and Anr.
6. MFA 9582/2007 (MV) : Sri.B.T.Venkatesh Vs. Sri. Jagadeesh Kumar and Ors.
7. MFA 8742/2008 : Oriental Ins. Co. ltd., Vs. K.C.Papanna and Anr.
8. Chandresh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava and Anr.(Allahabad High Court)
9. On hearing both sides and perusal of the evidence on records this court answers the above issues as follows:-
Issue No.1: In the affirmative
Issue No.2: Partly in the affirmative.
Issue No.3: As per the final order,
for the following:-
SCCH-25 9 MVC No.7748/2016
REASONS
10. Issue No.1: As I referred above, in order to prove his case, the petitioner has examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Eighteen documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.18. He has got examined Mr.Subramanya K.B. - Surveyor as PW.2 and not produced any documents on his behalf. He has also got examined Mr.Jafer Sadiq - Senior Assistant Manager, Rayal Sundaram Policy as PW.3 and got marked Ex.P.19.
On the other hand the Respondent No.2 has got examined Mr.P.G.Pandurangashetty - RTO as RW.1 and got marked Four documents as per Ex.R.1 to R.4. One Mr.Raghavendra G.K. got examined as RW.2 and did not produce any documents. One Mr.Krishnappa - SDA got examined as RW.3 and got produced Three documents as per Exs.R.5 to R.7 and Mr.Kiran Kumar.K - SDA got examined as RW.4 and got produced Eight documents as per Exs.R.8 to R.15 . The Respondent No.2 got examined Ms.Shanthakumari J - Deputy Manager as RW.5 and got produced Four documents as per Exs.R.16 to R.19 and closed their side. SCCH-25 10 MVC No.7748/2016 The details of the exhibits are given in the annexure of the judgment.
11. Before venturing into factual crux of the case, it is very pertinent note herein that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held in WP NO.1682 of 2021 that " It is clarified that the petitioner will not be entitled to interest from 15.08.2018 till the date on which he adduces further evidence on the basis of the orders of this Court, even if he succeeds in his claim petition." The learned counsel for the petitioner himself has admitted the dictum of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. So, the arguments of the insurer in respect to entitlement of interest if the petitioner succeed the claim petition, is clarified.
12. The petitioner has reiterated the contents of the petition in his affidavit. He deposed that prior to 8 months of the accident, he was purchased the vehicle. He further deposed that, men of insurance were made survey. He do not know the name of garage situated at Hosakote and also SCCH-25 11 MVC No.7748/2016 name of mechanic though he knew for last two years. He admitted that the driving license produced at Ex.P16 is belongs to one Subramanya. He denied the suggestion about non-possessing of the driving license. He admitted that he was not in the vehicle and personally he does not know manner of accident. He further denied other material suggestion of the counsel.
13. The petitioner has examined the surveyor as PW.2, he deposed in the chief examination that he was inspected the vehicle and issued Motor Finance Survey Report on 01.09.2015 after verifying all the documents of the vehicle. He has deposed in the cross examination that, he was inspected the damaged vehicle on 01.08.2015. He admitted that as he had inspected the vehicle on 03.08.2015, he referred the same date in his chief examination affidavit. He admitted that he has not made any facility to the vehicle in respect to transport and toeing. He has referred the labour charges as per the estimation SCCH-25 12 MVC No.7748/2016 given by the mechanic. He further admitted that he has not produced the documents to substantiate the expenses of vehicle parts. He admitted at the time of the accident, the insurance was in force to damaged vehicle.
14. The petitioner has examined the Senior Assistant Manager of Royal Sundaram Insurance as PW.3. He has deposed about issuance of policy and IDV value of vehicle in the chief examination. He admitted that, vehicle number was not reflected in the insurance policy as it was new vehicle. He admitted as on 09.06.2015, OD and third party claim policy was in force. He further deposed that they have not received any claim application. If they received, it was disposed off as per terms and conditions of the policy.
15. The insurer has examined the Motor vehicle Inspector of RTO, Chikkaballapura has RW.1. He has deposed in the chief examination that they have issued permit to bus bearing No.KA16A 1539 and its vailidity was SCCH-25 13 MVC No.7748/2016 from 15.10.2010 to 14.10.2025 and it was renewed from 15.10.2015 to 14.10.2020. Now the vehicle stands in the name of Sairam S/o Mohammad Gouse and his name was entered on 31.07.2015. In the cross examination, he has deposed on as on 15.03.2014 the vehicle bearing KA16 A 1539 was registered in Devenahalli RTO. The same vehicle was registered in their office on 31.07.2015 in the name of Sairam. He admitted as on 09.06.2015 the vehicle was not registered in their office or RTO. He further denied other suggestions.
16. The insurer further examined the investigating officer of crime No.125/2015 as RW.2 and he has deposed investigating process in the chief examination.
17. RW.3 is none other than men of RTO Office, Devanahalli. He deposed in the chief examination that, on 09.05.2015 the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA16 A 1539 was transferred to RTO, Chikkaballapur. He admitted they have issued permit to above said vehicle prior to SCCH-25 14 MVC No.7748/2016 09.02.2015. In the cross examination, he admitted that concerned official of Central RTO, Kormangala has issued permit to State Carriage Bus. They have not issued permit to above said vehicle.
18. Insurer has examined men of RTO office, Kormangala as RW.4. He deposed in the chief examination that the vehicle bearing KA 16 A 1539 was not holding permit as on 09.06.2015. they have issued state carriage permit to run in rural areas of Bengaluru. ARTO has not possessed powers to issue permit to any vehicle. He has deposed in the cross examination that Siddalaghatta has not comes under jurisdiction of Bengaluru.
19. The Deputy Manager of insurance company has reiterated the defense set out in the written statement in the chief examination. He deposed in the cross examination that the driver of bus had driving license. He further denied other suggestions of the petitioner's counsel. SCCH-25 15 MVC No.7748/2016
20. The police have submitted the charge sheet against the accused person or driver of offending bus for the offense punishable under section 279, 337,304A of IpC and section 66, 134 (A and B) of Motor Vehicle Act. It is undisputed fact that the accident in question was occurred within limits of Dibburahalli Police station, which is comes under jurisdiction of Chikkaballapura District. The insurer has examined the RTO of Chikkaballurpur, the official of RTO, Devanahalli and Koramangala in order to substantiate the contents of the charge sheet that too in relating to permit. On careful perusal of the oral evidence of these witnesses and documents on record, it is worth to note herein that, Ex.R2 viz endorsement of renewal of stage carriage permit issued by the RTO, Chikkaballapura is pertaining to offending vehicle is clearly depict that stage carriage permit No.P.ST.S 20/2010-2011 valid upto 14.10.2015 for operation on route Narayanapalli to Yagavakota and timings as specified. The said permit is renewed for a further period of Five Years, from 15.10.2015 SCCH-25 16 MVC No.7748/2016 tp 14.10.2020. The alleged accident was occurred on 09.06.2015. Therefore, it can be hold that the offending vehicle was holding valid permit or stage carriage permit as on the date of accident.
21. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in a decision reported in 12016 SCC ONLINE KAR 6504: (2017) AIR Kant R 67 that "It is contended by the appellant that deviation in route permit would amount to violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy but would not exonerate the liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured - Legality and justifiability - Held, the insurer can avoid its liability only on the statutory defenses enumerated in section 149 (2) of the act and deviation of route permit would not absolve the liability of the insurer since the same does not come within the purview of section 149 (2) of the Act- the purpose for which the vehicle may be used its distinguishable from the terms and conditions of the permit and route on which or the area in which the vehicle may be used in one of the terms and conditions of the permit but it cannot be construed as the purpose for which the vehicle".
1Durugamma D/o Yallamma V.s S.G. Naresh and others. SCCH-25 17 MVC No.7748/2016 As such, the deviation of the route permit is not absolve the liability of the insurance company.
22. The motor vehicle report marked at Ex.P18 depicts that the Mahendra Bolero Vehicle has got damaged to its (1) Front both head lamp assembly and both indicators damaged, (2) Bennet was dented and damaged, (3) Cabin fully damaged, (4) Front wind screen glass broken, (5) Front bumper damaged, (6) Cabin bath doors and door glasses damaged, (7) Dash board damaged, (8) Front bath fenders damaged, (9) Luggage carrying body was damaged, (10) Radiator assembly damaged, (11) Luggage carrying body was damaged at right side, (12) Suspected to be gearbox and engine assembly to be damaged and (13) front chassis damaged. Per contra the offending vehicle i.e., Private Bus bearing No.KA-16-A-1539 has got damaged to its (1) front wind screen glass broken, (2) Front bumper damaged and (3) front both side head gear assembly damaged. Damages appeared to both vehicles are SCCH-25 18 MVC No.7748/2016 clearly demonstrated that the petitioner's vehicle has got more damage compared to offending vehicle. The police documents are clearly depicts that the accident was occurred due to negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle. The oral evidence of the petitioner is coupled with documentary evidence in respect to alleged accident. Hence, I answered issue No.1 in the affirmatively.
23. Issue No.2: The petitioner has examined the surveyor in support of their claim. It is worth to note herein that the IDV value as mentioned in the report viz., Ex.P13 is Rs.4,45,388/-. The surveyor has given Motor (Final) Survey Report marked at Ex.P11. Following particulars is appearing in the second page of survey report.
Particulars of Original Assessed
Assessment Estimate Value Estimate Value
01 Total Labour Rs.93,450.00 Rs. 70,227.00
02 Total Parts Rs.3,07,635.00 Rs.2,84,505.00
(Approx.)
03 Salvage Value Rs.10,000.00 Rs.10,000.00
04 Transportation Rs.10,000.00 Rs.10,000.00
Total Rs.4,21,085.00 RS.3,74,732.00
SCCH-25 19 MVC No.7748/2016
24. The PW.2 himself has admitted that he was not arranged for vehicle for toeing the damaged vehicle. Apart from that the petitioners have not placed any material worth to establish they have made Rs.10,000/- towards transportation. As per Ex.P13, the entire body shell, frame assembly, primed P105 cargo assembly has to be replaced. The surveyor has assessed depreciation at the rate 5% of these parts. The surveyor has assessed 30 parts as replaced. Neither the petitioner nor the surveyor has produced the original rate tag bills or show room bills. It is true that the survey has given motor repair assessment. The assessment made by the surveyor is clearly depicts that the front portion of the petitioner's vehicle was got damaged. The surveyor has assessed the labor charges in the assessment report but, it was not supported with documents. By considering damages appeared in the motor vehicle inspection report and assessment made by the surveyor, it is appears to Court it is necessary to grant Rs.2,00,000/- against to the assessment made by the SCCH-25 20 MVC No.7748/2016 surveyor as either petitioner and surveyor has not produced exact rate of the damaged parts or replacing parts. Accordingly Issue No.2 is held partly in the affirmative.
25. Issue No.3:-
For the reasons and discussions made above and finding to the above issues, this court proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The petition is allowed in part The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of depositing the amount (excluding the period from 15.08.2018 to 25.01.2025) The Respondent No.2 insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the SCCH-25 21 MVC No.7748/2016 compensation amount within sixty days from the date of this award.
On deposit of compensation and interest, entire amount shall be released in favour of the Petitioner by way of e-payment on proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw decree accordingly. (Typed to my dictation directly on the computer by the Stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 18th day of September 2025).
(RAGHAVENDRA R.) XXIII ASCJ & ACJM Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined for Petitioner:
PW.1 Mr. Muniswamy Gowda @ Munishame Gowda PW.2 Mr. Subramanya K.B. PW.3 Mr. Jafer Sadiq
List of Documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P1 FIR in Cr.No.125/2015 and Complaint
Ex.P2 Spot Sketch
SCCH-25 22 MVC No.7748/2016
Ex.P3 Spot Mahazar
Exs.P4 Witness statements 4 in Nos.
to 7
Ex.P8 Charge sheet
Ex.P9 Letter from Royal Sundaram Motors
Ex.P10 Survey Bill
Ex.P11 Survey report
Ex.P12 Final summary
Ex.P13 Motor repair assessment bill
Ex.P14 31 Photos
Ex.P15 Notarized copy of Aadhar Card
Ex.P16 Driver DL
Ex.P17 'B' Extract
Ex.P18 IMV report
Ex.P19 Copy of policy in the name of
Muniswamygowda
List of Witnesses examined for Respondent/s:
RW.1 Mr. P.G.Pandurangashetty
RW.2 Mr. Raghavendra G.K.
RW.3 Mr. Krishnappa
RW.4 Mr.Kiran Kumar K.
RW.5 Ms. Shanthakumari
SCCH-25 23 MVC No.7748/2016
List of documents exhibited for Respondent:
Ex.R.1 'B' Extract
Ex.R.2 Endorsement dated 01.12.2015
Ex.R.3 Endorsement dated 25.08.2015
Ex.R.4 Permit Extract
Ex.R.5 Office order dated 12.07.2018
Exs.R.6
& P.7 Registered Vehicles Details 2 in Nos.
Ex.R.8 Office Order
Ex.R.9 Endorsement replacement related to the vehicle
bearing No.KA-13-A-1539
Exs.R.10
& 11 Endorsement transfer of permits 2 in Nos.
Ex.R.12 Endorsement of renewal permit Ex.R.13 Acknowledgment for exchange of vehicle Ex.R.14 Endorsement of replacement of vehicle Ex.R.15 Form No.41.
Ex.R.16 Copy of Policy Ex.R.17 Permit Ex.R.18 'B' Extract Ex.R.19 DL (RAGHAVENDRA R) XXIII ASCJ & MEMBER MACT.
Bengaluru.Digitally signed by RAMACHANDRAPPA
RAMACHANDRAPPA RAGHAVENDRA RAGHAVENDRA Date: 2025.09.19 11:12:53 +0530