Bangalore District Court
Hanumakka vs Reliance Gen Ins Co Ltd on 9 January, 2026
KABC020243742022
BEFORE THE COURT OF 10th ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT:
BENGALURU
(SCCH-16)
Present: Sri. Mohammed Yunus Athani
B.A.,LL.B.,
X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.4399/2022
C/W MVC No.4400/2022
Dated this 9th day of January, 2026
Petitioners in 1. Akshatha D/o Late Rudresh @
MVC 4399/2022: Rudresha,
Aged about 13 years,
2. Anusha D/o Late Rudresh @
Rudresha,
Aged about 12 years,
3. Anjanappa S/o Late
Hanumanthappa,
Aged about 65 years,
4. Vijayamma W/o Anjanappa,
Aged about 59 years,
(Petitioners No.1 and 2 are being
2 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
minors and represented by their
grand father and natural guardian
Anjanappa S/o Hanumanthappa,
Aged about 65 years)
Present Address:
All are R/at No.662/58,
8th Main Road, Prakash Nagar,
Siddanahosahalli, Dasanapur Hobli,
Bengaluru - 560 067.
Permanent Address:
#41, Kagathur, Davanagere-577221.
(Sri Ashok Kumar, Advocate)
Petitioners in 1. Hanumakka W/o Late Balappa,
MVC 4400/2022: Aged about 72 years,
2. Akshatha D/o Late Rudresh @
Rudresha,
Aged about 13 years,
3. Anusha D/o Late Rudresh @
Rudresha,
Aged about 12 years,
(Petitioners No.2 and 3 are being
minors and represented by their
grand father and natural guardian
Anjanappa S/o Hanumanthappa,
Aged about 65 years)
Present Address:
All are R/at No.662/58,
3 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
8th Main Road, Prakash Nagar,
Siddanahosahalli, Dasanapur Hobli,
Bengaluru - 560 067.
Permanent Address:
#41, Kagathur, Davanagere-577221.
(Sri Ashok Kumar, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents in 1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
both the cases : T.P. Claims Hub, No.28, 5th Floor,
Centenary Building, East Wing,
M.G. Road, Bengaluru - 560 001.
(Policy No.140822223340000770,
period of insurance from 15-01-2022
to 14-01-2023)
(Sri M. E. Madhu Sudhan, Advocate)
2. Abdul Farooq S/o Zaheer Ahamad,
Baragur Hand Post,
Channarayapattana Taluk,
Hassan District,
Channarayapattana - 573 116.
(Sri L. P. Suresh, Advocate)
COMMON JUDGMENT
These are petitions filed under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.75,00,000/- each
4 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
in MVC No.4399/2022 and MVC No.4400/2022, from the
respondents, on account of death of the deceased
Suneetha A., in MVC No.4399/2022 and Rudresh @
Rudresha in MVC No.4400/2022 in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :
On 27-07-2022 at about 9.15 p.m., the deceased P.
Suneetha A., in MVC No.4399/2022 and Rudresh @
Rudresha in MVC No.4400/2022 were proceeding as pillion
rider and rider on a motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-06-EK-
8230. The deceased Rudresh was riding the said motorcycle
slowly, cautiously, by observing all the traffic rules and
regulations on NH-4 Bengaluru-Tumkur Peenya Fly over,
Goragunte Palya and proceeding towards Chikkabidarkallu.
When they reached near Fly over Lay Bye, at that time all of
a sudden a Tata 207 Towing Crane bearing Reg. No.KA-04-
C-2800 driven by its driver with high speed, in rash and
negligent manner, without observing the traffic norms,
endangering to human life, came on wrong lane and
5 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased from
behind. Due to said impact, both the deceased fell down on
the road and sustained grievous head injuries. Immediately
after the accident, they were shifted to K.C. General
Hospital, wherein the doctors examined them and declared
that they succumbed to the fatal injuries on the way to the
hospital. Earlier to the accident, the deceased in
MVC No.4399/2022 was working as tailor and also doing
saree business and was earning Rs.35,000/- per month. She
was contributing her entire earnings to her family. Due to
untimely death of a sole bread earner, the petitioners are
struggling for their livelihood. Earlier to the accident, the
deceased in MVC No.4400/2022 was working as civil work
contractor and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. He was
contributing his entire earnings to his family. Due to
untimely death of a sole bread earner, the petitioners are
struggling for their livelihood. The Peenya Traffic Police
have registered the case against the driver of the said Tata
6 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
207 Towing Crane for the offences punishable under
Section 279, 337 and 304(A) of I.P.C. The respondent No.1 is
the insurer and respondent No.2 is the owner of the
offending vehicle. Hence, they are jointly and severally
liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, it
is prayed to allow the petitions and award compensation of
Rs.75,00,000/- each in MVC No.4399/2022 and MVC
No.4400/2022, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the
respondents No.1 and 2 have appeared through their
counsel. The respondent No.1 has filed its written
statement. Whereas, the respondent No.2 did not choose to
file his written statement.
4. The respondent No.1 in its written statement has
denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has denied
the existence of the policy in respect of the vehicle bearing
No.KA-04-C-2800 of the respondent No.2. It has also denied
7 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
the age, income and avocation of the deceased. It has
contended that, the petition is bad for non-compliance of
provision under Sections 134(C) and 158(6) of Motor
Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the compensation
claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. Further, it has
sought for permission to contest the case even on behalf of
respondent No.2, under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles
Act. Further it is contended that, the driver of offending
vehicle drove the same without holding driving licence at
the material time of accident, which is in contravention of
the policy condition and also Motor Vehicles Act. The
respondent No.2 being the owner of offending vehicle has
knowing fully entrusted the said vehicle to the driver, not
holding driving licence and there was no permit and fitness
certificate to the offending vehicle to ply the same on the
road at the material time of the accident. Thereby the
respondent No.2 has violated the terms and conditions of
the policy. As such the respondent No.1 is not liable to pay
8 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
any compensation or to indemnify the respondent No.2 in
any manner whatsoever and the petition is liable to be
dismissed against the respondent No.1. Further it is
contended that, both the deceased were not wearing
helmet while proceeding on the motorcycle at the material
point of time of accident. This is clear violation of provisions
of the Motor Vehicles Act and its rules. Further it is
contended that, there is inordinate delay in lodging the
complaint. The petitioners have completely utilized the said
delay in concocting and creating the case, with an intention
to claim against the respondent No1. Further it is
contended that, the deceased was riding the motorcycle
bearing No.KA-06-EK-8230 in a rash and negligent manner,
in the middle of the road and all of a sudden came infront
of the vehicle of the respondent No.2 and contributed to
the accident. But, while lodging the complaint the entire
facts are twisted and lodged the false complaint and
accordingly managed to file false charge-sheet against the
9 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
driver of insured vehicle, in collusion with the concerned
police. Further it is contended that, the alleged accident has
taken place due to the negligence on the part of the
deceased himself, as he was not holding driving licence to
ride the motorcycle. The deceased in MVC No.4399/2022
took the risk of traveling on the said motorcycle, knowing
fully well that the rider was not holding driving licence. This
is clear case of "Valunti non fit injuria". As such, the owner
of the vehicle bearing No.KA-06-EK-8230 is liable to pay the
compensation to the petitioner. Further in its additional
written statement, it has contended that, the investigating
officer has filed the charge-sheet against the driver of the
offending vehicle and respondent No.2, as accused No.1
and 2 respectively and also he has filed charge-sheet
against one Balaramareddy S/o Pullareddy, Class-I
Contractor, as accused No.3, wherein it is clearly mentioned
that he has received the contract from the National
Highway Authority of India, for the repair of the road on fly
10 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
over, as the water was lagging on the fly over and also to
repair the street light. But he was not attended the said
work well within time and due to negligence on his part has
led to the accident. Further, the investigating officer has
filed charge-sheet against one Shabaz Alam who is the
Supervisor and A.K. Jhan Bass, who is the Project Director of
National Highway Authority of India. They have been
charge-sheeted as accused No.3 and 4 respectively, for the
offences punishable under Section 280, 304(A) of IPC.
Further it is contended that, the vehicle of the deceased was
badly damaged and not even a single damage was found to
be caused to the vehicle of respondent No.1, which has
been clearly noted in the Motor Vehicle Accident report.
This clearly goes to show and confirms that, the vehicle of
the respondent No.1 was not at all involved in the alleged
accident in any manner whatsoever. Further it is contended
that, in reply to the letter dated 09-08-2022 issued by the
Police Inspector, Peenya Traffic Police, the National
11 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
Highways Authority of India, dated 16-08-2022, it is clearly
mentioned in the said letter that, no entry for the two-
wheeler and three-wheeler at the entry and exit of the
elevated highway was installed and they have enclosed the
photograph along with the said reply. As such, it is crystal
clear that, the absolute negligence is on the part of the
deceased who entered the road where it is absolutely
restricted. Hence, this respondent is not at all liable to pay
or to indemnify the respondent No.1 in any manner
whatsoever and the petition is liable to be dismissed
against it. For the above denials and contentions, it is
prayed to dismiss the petitions.
5. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the
following issues are framed:
Issues in MVC No.4399/2022
1. Whether the petitioners prove that,
deceased Suneetha A. W/o Late Rudresh,
has succumbed to the grievous injuries
12 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
sustained in the road traffic accident,
alleged to have been occurred on 27-07-
2022 at about 9.15 p.m., on NH-4
Bengaluru-Tumkur Peenya Flyover, near
Lay Bye, Bengaluru, due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the Tata
207 Towing Crane bearing registration
No.KA-04-C-2800 ?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the quantum
and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?
Issues in MVC No.4400/2022
1. Whether the petitioners prove that,
deceased Rudresh @ Rudresha S/o Late
Balappa, has succumbed to the grievous
injuries sustained in the road traffic
13 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
accident, alleged to have been occurred on
27-07-2022 at about 9.15 p.m., on NH-4
Bengaluru-Tumkur Peenya Flyover, near
Lay Bye, Bengaluru, due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the Tata
207 Towing Crane bearing registration
No.KA-04-C-2800 ?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to
compensation? If so, what is the quantum
and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?
6. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.3 in
MVC No.4399/2022 and petitioner No.1 in MVC
No.4400/2022 have got examined themselves as P.W.1 and
P.W.2 respectively and got marked total 22 documents as
Ex.P.1 to 22. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 has
examined the R.T.O. Hassan, Police Inspector of Electronic
14 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
City Traffic Police Station, Police Inspector of C.I.D.,
Bengaluru, Manager Technical, NHAI, Bengaluru and
Manager-Legal of respondent No.1 company as R.W.1 to
R.W.5 respectively and got marked total 22 documents as
Ex.R.1 to 22. Whereas, the respondent No.2 has not
adduced any evidence on his behalf.
7. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and
perused the entire material placed on record. The counsel
for petitioners has relied on the following decisions in
support of his arguments:
i. Akula Narayana V/s The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., and another, in Civil
Appeal No.013509/2025 (Arising out of
SLP (C) No.8434/2023), judgment dated
10-11-2025.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:
In MVC No.4399/2022 & MVC No.4400/2022
Issue No.1: Affirmative
15 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative
Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the
following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1 in both the cases: It is specific case of the
petitioners in both the cases that, on 27-07-2022 at about
9.15 p.m., when the deceased P. Suneetha and deceased
Rudresh @ Rudresha were proceeding on a motorcycle
bearing Reg. No.KA-06-EK-8230, as pillion rider and rider,
slowly, cautiously, by observing all the traffic rules and
regulations, on NH-4 Bengaluru-Tumkur Peenya Fly over,
Goragunte Palya and proceeding towards Chikkabidarkallu,
at that time all of a sudden the offending Tata 207 Towing
Crane bearing Reg. No.KA-04-C-2800, driven by its driver
with high speed, in rash and negligent manner, came on
wrong lane and dashed against the motorcycle of the
deceased from behind. Due to the said impact, both the
16 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
deceased have fell down on the road, sustained grievous
head injuries and succumbed to said injuries.
10. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.3 in
MVC No.4399/2022 and the petitioner No.1 in MVC
No.4400/2022 have got examined themselves as P.W.1 and
P.W.2 respectively, by filing their examination-in-chief
affidavits, wherein they have reiterated the entire
averments made in the petition. In support of their oral
evidence, the petitioners have got marked 22 documents as
Ex.P.1 to 22. Out of the said documents, Ex.P.1 is true copy
of F.I.R., Ex.P.2 is true copy of first information statement,
Ex.P.3 are true copy of spot mahazar and sketch, Ex.P.4 is
true copy of Motor Vehicle Accident report, Ex.P.5 is true
copy of inquest, Ex.P.6 is true copy of post-mortem report,
Ex.P.7 is true copy of charge-sheet, Ex.P.8 is true copy of
notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act, Ex.P.9 is
true copy of reply to notice under Section 133 of Motor
Vehicles Act, Ex.P.10 is true copy of fast tag statement,
17 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
Ex.P.11 is notarized copy of Aadhar card of deceased,
Ex.P.12 to 15 are notarized copy of Aadhar cards of
petitioners, Ex.P.16 is true copy of inquest, Ex.P.17 is true
copy of post-mortem report, Ex.P.18 is notarized copy of
Aadhar card of deceased, Ex.P.19 is notarized copy of
driving licence of deceased and Ex.P.20 to 22 are notarized
copy of Aadhar cards of petitioners.
11. On meticulously going through the police documents
marked as Ex.P.1 to 9, 16 and 17, prima-facia it reveals that,
the alleged accident has taken place due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of offending Tata 207 Towing
Crane bearing Reg. No.KA-04-C-2800 and dashing the same
to the motorcycle bearing No.KA-06-EK-8230 of the
deceased from behind. Further it reveals that, due to said
impact the rider and pillion rider both have sustained
multiple injuries all over the body and succumbed to said
injuries, on the way to the hospital. The investigation officer
in his Ex.P.7 final report/charge-sheet has clearly stated
18 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
that, the alleged accident has occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of offending Tata 207 Towing
Crane bearing Reg. No.KA-04-C-2800 and dashing the same
to the motorcycle bearing No.KA-06-EK-8230 of the
deceased from behind. Further, he has filed charge-sheet
against the Supervisor and the Project Director of National
Highway Authority of India, as accused No.3 and 4
respectively, alleging that, due to non-maintenance of the
road at the place of accident, has also contributed to the
said accident.
12. At the outset it is pertinent to note that, in both the
cases, the date, time and place of accident, involvement of
Tata 207 Towing Crane bearing Reg. No.KA-04-C-2800 in the
alleged accident, issuance of insurance policy in respect of
said vehicle by the respondent No.1 and its validity as on
the date of accident, are not in dispute. Further, the above
averred facts and circumstances of the accident has
remained undisputed by the respondent No.2, who is the
19 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
owner of offending vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-04-C-2800.
But, the respondent No.1 has specifically denied the above
averred facts and circumstances of the accident and taken
specific defence that, the accident has occurred due to rash
and negligent riding of the deceased himself, as he was
riding the motorcycle bearing No.KA-06-EK-8230 in the
middle of the road, in rash and negligent manner and all of
a sudden came infront of the vehicle of the respondent
No.2 and contributed to the accident. Further it is
contended that, while lodging the complaint the entire facts
are twisted by the petitioners and lodged a false complaint
against the driver of Tata 207 Towing Crane bearing Reg.
No.KA-04-C-2800 and they have caused to file false charge-
sheet against the said driver, in collusion with the Police
authorities. But, the respondent No.1 has failed to establish
the said contentions. Except the self serving statements of
R.W.5, who is the representative/Manager-Legal of
respondent No.1 insurance company, there is no other
20 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
corroborative oral or documentary evidence placed on
record by the respondent No.1 to show that, the accident
has taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the
motorcycle by the deceased himself and there was no
negligence on the part of the driver of offending vehicle. If
really the said accident had taken place due to rash and
negligent riding of the deceased himself, the same could
have been easily established by examining the eye-witness
to the alleged accident. But, the respondent No.1 has not
taken any strain to examine the eye-witness to the alleged
accident, for the reasons best known to it. There is
absolutely no evidence on record to show that, at the
relevant point of time of accident the deceased was riding
his motorcycle in rash and negligent manner and the
accident has taken place due to his own negligence.
13. Further, the respondent No.1 has even failed to
establish the alleged contention that, the said accident has
taken place due to negligence of the accused No.3 and 4. It
21 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
is contended that, the accused No.3 & 4 have entered into
contract with the National Highway Authority of India for
repair of the road on fly over, as the water was lagging on
the fly over and to repair the street lights. But, they have
not attended the said work well within time and their
negligence has contributed to the cause of accident. In
order to establish the same, the respondent No.1 has
examined the police officers who have conducted
investigation in the case and the Manager Technical,
National Highway Authority of India, Bengaluru, as R.W.2 to
4 respectively. But, nowhere in their evidence the R.W.2 o 4
have deposed that, at the relevant point of time of accident,
there was water lagging on the said road and the street
lights were not operating and due to which the driver of
offending Tata 207 Towing Crane vehicle has lost control
over his vehicle and dashed against the motorcycle of the
deceased. Therefore, in such circumstances, mere for the
reason that, the accused No.3 & 4 have not attended their
22 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
work or they have not completed the alleged work well
within time, as per the contract, they cannot be held liable
for the alleged accident. There is no nexus between the
cause of accident and non-completion of assigned work by
the accused No.3 & 4. On the other hand, the oral and
documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners
clearly establishes that, the said accident has occurred due
to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Tata
207 Towing Crane bearing No.KA-04-C-2800 and dashing
the same to the motorcycle of the deceased from behind,
which was proceeding in the same direction. Though, the
learned counsel for respondent No.1 has cross-examined
P.W.1 and P.W.2 in length, nothing worth has been elicited
from their mouth which creates doubt on the veracity of
their evidence or which goes to show that, the said accident
has occurred due to negligence of the deceased or there
was any contributory negligence on his part in the cause of
accident.
23 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
14. Further, the respondent No.1 has even failed to
establish the alleged contention that, the two-wheeler and
three wheeler vehicles were not permitted to ply on the said
fly over road. Except the self serving statements of R.W.5,
who is none other than the representative/Manager of
respondent No.1 insurance company, there is no other oral
and documentary evidence placed on record by the
respondent No.1 to show that, the two-wheeler and three
wheeler vehicles were not permitted to ply on the said fly
over road, as on the date of accident. Admittedly, the
respondent No.1 has not produced any
document/notification issued by the competent authority
with respect to same and even it has failed to prove that,
there was a caution board installed at the starting point of
the said fly over road notifying that, the two-wheeler and
three wheeler vehicles are not permitted to ply on the said
fly over road. The R.W.3 has clearly admitted in his cross-
examination that, there was no such board installed at the
24 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
starting point of the said fly over, during the course of
drawing spot mahazar of the place of accident. Even,
nothing with respect to same has been mentioned in the
Ex.P.3 spot mahazar or spot sketch.
15. The Ex.P.3 spot mahazar and sketch clearly speaks
that, the accident has taken place on 22 feet wide NH-48
Bengaluru-Tumkur Peenya Fly over lay bye, near Dasarahalli
Metro Station, in between offending Tata 207 Towing Crane
bearing No.KA-04-C-2800 and ongoing motorcycle bearing
No.KA-06-EK-8230 of the deceased, which were proceeding
in the same direction. Further, as per the Motor Vehicle
Accident Report, which is marked as Ex.P.4, the accident is
not caused due to any mechanical defects in the vehicles
involved in the accident. When the accident was not caused
due to the any mechanical defects in the vehicles involved
in the accident and there was no negligence on the part of
the deceased, then in the present facts and circumstances
of the case, it can be presumed that, the said accident had
25 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
offending vehicle. The investigation officer in his Ex.P.7 final
report/charge-sheet has clearly stated that, the accident in
question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving
of the driver of offending Tata 207 Towing Crane bearing
No.KA-04-C-2800 and the deceased Suneetha A. and
Rudresh have succumbed to grievous injuries sustained in
the said accident. Admittedly, the said final report/charge-
sheet has not been challenged either by the owner or the
driver of offending vehicle. In such circumstances, there is
no impediment to believe the charge-sheet/final report of
the investigation officer and other police records, regarding
the date, time and place of accident, involvement of the
offending vehicle, rash and negligent driving of the driver
of offending vehicle and injuries caused to the deceased in
the said accident and cause of their death.
16. Further, the Ex.P.6 and 17 post-mortem reports,
clearly speaks that, deceased Suneetha and Rudresh have
26 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
died due to shock and multiple injuries sustained in the
road traffic accident. On the other hand, there is no rebuttal
evidence placed on record by the respondents to show that,
the above medical records are false. In such circumstances
and in the light of above observations, it can safely be held
that, the respondents have failed to rebut the oral and
documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners,
regarding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending Tata 207 Towing Crane bearing No.KA-04-C-2800
and cause of death of deceased Suneetha and Rudresh.
17. Further, it is well settled principle of law that, in a case
relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are not
required to prove the case as required to be done in a
criminal trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Parameshwari V/s Amir Chand and others, reported in
(2011) 11 SCC 635, has clearly held that, "in a road accident
claim cases the strict principle of proof in a criminal case
are not required."
27 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bimla Devi
and others V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation
and others, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 513, has clearly held
that, "in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the
claimants are merely required to establish their case on
touch stone of preponderance of probability and the
standard of proof on beyond reasonable doubt could not be
applied."
19. Therefore, in the light of observations made in the
above cited decisions and for the above stated reasons, this
Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioners in
both the two cases have successfully proved that, the
deceased Suneetha A., in MVC No.4399/2022 and Rudresh
@ Rudresha in MVC No.4400/2022 have succumbed to
grievous injuries, sustained in the road traffic accident
occurred on 27-07-2022 at about 9.15 p.m., on NH-4
Bengaluru-Tumkur Peenya Flyover, near Lay Bye, Bengaluru,
28 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
Tata 207 Towing Crane bearing No.KA-04-C-2800. Hence, I
answer Issue No.1 in both the cases in Affirmative.
20. Issue No.2 in MVC No.4399/2022: While answering
the above issue, for the reasons stated therein, this Court
has already held that, the petitioners have successfully
proved through cogent and corroborative evidence that,
the accident is caused due to rash and negligent driving of
the driver of offending Tata 207 Towing Crane bearing
No.KA-04-C-2800 and the deceased Suneetha has
succumbed to grievous injuries sustained in the said
accident. Now the petitioners are required to establish that,
they are the legal representatives of the deceased. In this
regard, they have produced the Aadhar card of deceased
Suneetha and their respective Aadhar cards, which are
marked as Ex.P.11 to 15. The said documents clearly goes to
show that, the petitioners No.1 and 2 are the daughters and
29 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
petitioners No.3 and 4 are the parents of deceased
Suneetha. On the other hand, the relationship of the
petitioners with the deceased Suneetha is not specifically
denied by the respondents in the case and even there is no
contrary evidence on record with respect to same. In such
circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the above
documents produced by the petitioners and hold that, the
petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased
Suneetha.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of National
Insurance Co. V/s Birender, reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356,
has clearly held that,
"The legal representatives of the
deceased could move application for
compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section
166(1). The major married son who is also
earning and not fully dependant on the
deceased, would be still covered by the
expression "legal representative" of the
deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera (supra)
had expounded that liability to pay
compensation under the Act does not cease
30 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
because of absence of dependency of the
concerned legal representative. Notably, the
expression "legal representative" has not been
defined in the Act.
The Tribunal has a duty to make an
award, determine the amount of
compensation which is just and proper and
specify the person or persons to whom such
compensation would be paid. The latter part
relates to the entitlement of compensation by
a person who claims for the same.
It is thus settled by now that the legal
representatives of the deceased have a right to
apply for compensation. Having said that, it
must necessarily follow that even the major
married and earning sons of the deceased
being legal representatives have a right to
apply for compensation and it would be the
bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the
application irrespective of the fact whether the
concerned legal representative was fully
dependent on the deceased and not to limit
the claim towards conventional heads only."
22. According to the ratio laid down in above decision,
the legal representatives though not fully dependent on the
deceased are entitled to claim compensation under all the
heads i.e., under both conventional and non-conventional
heads. In order to determine the compensation, the age,
avocation, income, dependency, future prospects of the
31 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
deceased and other conventional heads are to be
ascertained.
23. The compensation towards loss of dependency:
The oral and documentary evidence placed on record
by the petitioners clearly establishes that, the petitioners
are the legal representatives of the deceased Suneetha and
they were depending on the deceased. The dependency
does not only mean financial dependency. Even if the
dependency is a relevant criterion to claim compensation
for loss of dependency, it does not mean financial
dependency is the 'ark of the covenant'. Dependency
includes gratuitous service dependency, physical
dependency, emotional dependency and psychological
dependency. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that, all the
petitioners are entitled for compensation under the head of
loss of dependency. In order to calculate the loss of
dependency, the first step is to determine the age and
income of the deceased.
32 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
i) Age and income of the deceased: The
petitioners have averred that, the age of deceased as on the
date of accident was 30 years. To substantiate this point,
the petitioners have produced the Aadhar card of deceased
Suneetha A., which is marked as Ex.P.11, wherein the date
of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 23-06-1992.
Admittedly, the accident has occurred on 27-07-2022. This
clearly goes to show that, as on the date of accident the age
of the deceased was 30 years. It is averred in the petition
that, as on the date of accident the deceased was hale and
healthy and she was working as tailor and also doing saree
business and was earning a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month.
But, the petitioners have not produced any document to
show that, before accident the deceased Suneetha A., was
working as tailor and also doing saree business and was
earning a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month. In such
circumstances, there is no other option before this Court,
33 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
except to consider the notional income as per the
guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
a) The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the
cases of, G. T. Basavaraj V/s Niranjan and another, in
MFA No.7781/2016, judgment dated 11-08-2022,
Ramanna and another V/s Y. B. Mahesh and another in
MFA No.140/2017, judgment dated 16-01-2020 and New
India Assurance Co. Ltd., V/s Anusaya and others in MFA
No.101195/2014, judgment dated 05-01-2023, has clearly
held that, "when the income of the deceased is not proved,
then the notional income as per the guidelines issued by
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is to be adopted as
the income of the deceased."
b) Admittedly, the accident has taken place in the
year 2022. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased
as per the guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority is to be treated as Rs.15,500/- per month.
34 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
Therefore, the annual income of the deceased in the
present case is held as Rs.1,86,000/-.
ii) As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
V/s Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC
680, the legal heirs of deceased are also entitled for future
prospects of the deceased, though he was not a permanent
employee, as on the date of death. Since the deceased was
aged about 30 years and was not a permanent employee,
the future prospects would be 40% of her income, which
comes to Rs.74,400/-. Therefore, the future prospects of the
deceased is held as Rs.74,400/-. If this income is added to
the notional income, then it comes to Rs.2,60,400/-. Further,
the annual income of the deceased comes within the
exemption limits as per Income Tax Act.
iii) The deduction of personal expenses and
calculating the multiplier: The family of the deceased
consist of 4 persons i.e., petitioners No.1 to 4. The total
35 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
number of dependents of the deceased are four. Therefore,
deduction towards the personal expenses of deceased is
taken as 1/4th of the total income, which comes to
Rs.65,100/-. After deducting 1/4th out of total income,
towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the annual
income of the deceased is held as Rs.1,95,300/-.
iv) As on the date of death, the age of the
deceased was 30 years. As per the guidelines laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and
others V/s Delhi Transport Corporation and another,
reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 S.C., the appropriate multiplier in
the present case is taken as 17. Accordingly, the
compensation under the head of loss of dependency is held
as Rs.1,95,300/- x 17 = Rs.33,20,100/-.
v) Compensation under conventional heads: In
the present case, admittedly the petitioners No.1 and 2 are
the daughters and petitioners No.3 and 4 are the parents of
deceased Suneetha A. Hence, the petitioners No.1 to 4 are
36 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
entitled for compensation under the head of parental and
filial consortium. As per the guidelines laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Co. Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16
SCC 680, the compensation under the following
conventional heads is awarded:
a) Loss of estate - Rs. 15,000/-
b) Loss of consortium - Rs. 40,000/- each
c) Funeral expenses - Rs. 15,000/-
The compensation under above heads has to be
enhanced 10% for every 3 years. Seven years have been
lapsed from the date of the judgment. Therefore, the
compensation under the above conventional heads is
enhanced by 20%, the loss of estate comes to Rs.18,000/-,
the loss of parental and filial consortium comes to
Rs.48,000/- each to petitioners No.1 to 4 and funeral
expenses comes to Rs.18,000/-.
37 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
24. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation under different heads as follows:
Sl. Head of
Amount/Rs
No. Compensation
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 33,20,100-00
2. Loss of parental and filial Rs. 1,92,000-00
consortium
3. Loss of estate Rs. 18,000-00
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000-00
Total Rs. 35,48,100-00
Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation of Rs.35,48,100/-, with interest at the rate of
6% per annum, from the date of petition till its realization.
25. Issue No.2 in MVC No.4400/2022: While answering
the above issue, for the reasons stated therein, this Court
has already held that, the petitioners have successfully
proved through cogent and corroborative evidence that,
the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of offending Tata 207 Towing Crane
bearing No.KA-04-C-2800 and the deceased Rudresh @
38 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
Rudresha has succumbed to grievous injuries sustained in
the said accident. Now the petitioners are required to
establish that, they are the legal representatives of the
deceased. In this regard, they have produced the Aadhar
card of deceased Rudresh @ Rudresha and their respective
Aadhar cards, which are marked as Ex.P.18 and 20 to 22.
The said documents clearly goes to show that, the
petitioner No.1 is the mother and petitioners No.2 and 3 are
the daughters of deceased Rudresh @ Rudresha. On the
other hand, the relationship of the petitioners with the
deceased Rudresh @ Rudresha., is not specifically denied by
the respondent No.1 in the case and even there is no
rebuttal evidence with respect to same placed on record by
the respondent No.1. In such circumstances, there is no
impediment to believe the above documents produced by
the petitioners and hold that, the petitioners are the legal
representatives of deceased Rudresh @ Rudresha.
39 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of National
Insurance Co. V/s Birender, reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356,
has clearly held that,
"The legal representatives of the
deceased could move application for
compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section
166(1). The major married son who is also
earning and not fully dependant on the
deceased, would be still covered by the
expression "legal representative" of the
deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera (supra)
had expounded that liability to pay
compensation under the Act does not cease
because of absence of dependency of the
concerned legal representative. Notably, the
expression "legal representative" has not been
defined in the Act.
The Tribunal has a duty to make an
award, determine the amount of
compensation which is just and proper and
specify the person or persons to whom such
compensation would be paid. The latter part
relates to the entitlement of compensation by
a person who claims for the same.
It is thus settled by now that the legal
representatives of the deceased have a right to
apply for compensation. Having said that, it
must necessarily follow that even the major
married and earning sons of the deceased
being legal representatives have a right to
apply for compensation and it would be the
bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the
40 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
application irrespective of the fact whether the
concerned legal representative was fully
dependent on the deceased and not to limit
the claim towards conventional heads only."
27. According to the ratio laid down in above decision,
the legal representatives though not fully dependent on the
deceased are entitled to claim compensation under all the
heads i.e., under both conventional and non-conventional
heads. In order to determine the compensation, the age,
avocation, income, dependency, future prospects of the
deceased and other conventional heads are to be
ascertained.
28. The compensation towards loss of dependency:
The oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the
petitioners clearly establishes that, the petitioners are the
legal representatives of the deceased Rudresh @ Rudresha
and they were depending on the deceased. The
dependency does not only mean financial dependency.
Even if the dependency is a relevant criterion to claim
41 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
compensation for loss of dependency, it does not mean
financial dependency is the 'ark of the covenant'.
Dependency includes gratuitous service dependency,
physical dependency, emotional dependency and
psychological dependency. Hence, this Court is of the
opinion that, all the petitioners are entitled for
compensation under the head of loss of dependency. In
order to calculate the loss of dependency, the first step is to
determine the age and income of the deceased.
i) Age and income of the deceased: The
petitioners have averred that, the age of deceased as on the
date of accident was 36 years. To substantiate this point,
the petitioners have produced the Aadhar card and driving
licence of deceased Rudresh @ Rudresha, which are marked
as Ex.P.18 and 19, wherein the date of birth of the deceased
is mentioned as 04-08-1985. Admittedly, the accident has
occurred on 27-07-2022. This clearly goes to show that, as
on the date of accident the age of the deceased was 37
42 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
years. It is averred in the petition that, as on the date of
accident the deceased was hale and healthy and was
working as Civil Work Contractor and was earning a sum of
Rs.40,000/- per month. But, the petitioners have not
produced any document to show that, before accident the
deceased Rudresh @ Rudresha, was working as Civil Work
Contractor and was earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per
month. In such circumstances, there is no other option
before this Court, except to consider the notional income as
per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority.
a) The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the
cases of, G. T. Basavaraj V/s Niranjan and another, in
MFA No.7781/2016, judgment dated 11-08-2022,
Ramanna and another V/s Y. B. Mahesh and another in
MFA No.140/2017, judgment dated 16-01-2020 and New
India Assurance Co. Ltd., V/s Anusaya and others in MFA
No.101195/2014, judgment dated 05-01-2023, has clearly
43 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
held that, "when the income of the deceased is not proved,
then the notional income as per the guidelines issued by
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is to be adopted as
the income of the deceased."
b) Admittedly, the accident has taken place in the
year 2022. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased
as per the guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority is to be treated as Rs.15,500/- per month.
Therefore, the annual income of the deceased in the
present case is held as Rs.1,86,000/-.
ii) As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
V/s Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC
680, the legal heirs of deceased are also entitled for future
prospects of the deceased, though he was not a permanent
employee, as on the date of death. Since the deceased was
aged about 37 years and was not a permanent employee,
the future prospects would be 40% of his income, which
44 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
comes to Rs.74,400/-. Therefore, the future prospects of the
deceased is held as Rs.74,400/-. If this income is added to
the notional income, then it comes to Rs.2,60,400/-. Further,
the annual income of the deceased comes within the
exemption limits as per Income Tax Act.
iii) The deduction of personal expenses and
calculating the multiplier: The family of the deceased
consist of 3 persons i.e., petitioners No.1 to 3. The total
number of dependents of the deceased are three.
Therefore, deduction towards the personal expenses of
deceased is taken as 1/3rd of the total income, which comes
to Rs.86,800/-. After deducting 1/3rd out of total income,
towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the annual
income of the deceased is held as Rs.1,73,600/-.
iv) As on the date of death, the age of the
deceased was 37 years. As per the guidelines laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and
others V/s Delhi Transport Corporation and another,
45 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 S.C., the appropriate multiplier in
the present case is taken as 15. Accordingly, the
compensation under the head of loss of dependency is held
as Rs.1,73,600/- x 15 = Rs.26,04,000/-.
v) Compensation under conventional heads: In
the present case, admittedly the petitioner No.1 is mother
and petitioners No.2 and 3 are the daughters of deceased
Rudresh @ Rudresha. Hence, the petitioners No.1 to 3 are
entitled for compensation under the head of filial and
parental consortium. As per the guidelines laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Co. Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16
SCC 680, the compensation under the following
conventional heads is awarded:
a) Loss of estate - Rs. 15,000/-
b) Loss of consortium - Rs. 40,000/- each
c) Funeral expenses - Rs. 15,000/-
The compensation under above heads has to be
enhanced 10% for every 3 years. Seven years have been
46 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
lapsed from the date of the judgment. Therefore, the
compensation under the above conventional heads is
enhanced by 20%, the loss of estate comes to Rs.18,000/-,
the loss of filial and parental consortium comes to
Rs.48,000/- each to petitioners No.1 to 3 and funeral
expenses comes to Rs.18,000/-.
29. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation under different heads as follows:
Sl. Head of
Amount/Rs
No. Compensation
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 26,04,000-00
2. Loss of filial and parental Rs. 1,44,000-00
consortium
3. Loss of estate Rs. 18,000-00
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000-00
Total Rs. 27,84,000-00
Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation of Rs.27,84,000/-, with interest at the rate of
6% per annum, from the date of petition till its realization.
47 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
30. Liability: Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the
respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the
owner of the offending vehicle bearing No.KA-04-C-2800. As
per Ex.R.21 insurance policy bearing
No.140822223340000770, issued by the respondent No.1, in
respect of offending Tata 207 Towing Crane bearing No.KA-
04-C-2800 was valid from 15-01-2022 to 14-01-2023. As
such, the said policy was valid as on the date of accident i.e.
27-07-2022. Further, the evidence placed on record by the
petitioners clearly establishes that, due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of offending Tata 207 Towing
Crane bearing No.KA-04-C-2800 the accident in question
has taken place and the deceased Suneetha A., in MVC
No.4399/2022 and Rudresh @ Rudresha in MVC
No.4400/2022 have succumbed to grievous injuries
sustained in the said accident. In such circumstances, the
respondent No.2 being the owner of said vehicle is
vicariously liable to compensate for the damage caused by
48 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
the usage of said vehicle. The respondent No.1 being the
insurer of the vehicle has to indemnify the respondent
No.2.
31. But, the respondent No.1 has taken specific defence
that, as on the date of accident the driver of offending Tata
207 Towing Crane bearing No.KA-04-C-2800 was not
holding valid driving licence to drive the said vehicle. As
there is breach of fundamental condition of the policy, the
respondent No.1 insurance company is not liable to
indemnify the insured/respondent No.2. In such
circumstances, the burden was on the respondent No.2 to
establish that, as on the date of accident the driver of his
vehicle was holding valid & effective driving licence to drive
the offending vehicle, which he has failed to discharge in
the present case, as he did not choose to file his written
statement and contest the case of the petitioner.
49 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
32. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 vehemently
argued that, as per the Ex.P.7 final report/charge-sheet, at
the time accident the driver of offending Tata 207 Towing
Crane bearing No.KA-04-C-2800 was not holding driving
licence to drive the said vehicle and hence in addition to the
offence punishable under Sec. 279 and 304(A) of IPC, he has
been charge-sheeted for offence punishable U/Sec. 3(1) R/w
181 of Motor Vehicles Act and the owner of the offending
vehicle has been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable
under Section 5(1) R/w 180 of Motor Vehicles Act. Further
argued that, as there is breach of fundamental term and
condition of the policy, the respondent No.1 insurance
company is not liable to indemnify the insured/respondent
No.2. Hence, the petition against the respondent No.1
insurance company is liable to be dismissed.
33. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
petitioners vehemently argued that, it is settled principle of
law that, even if there is a fundamental breach of any
50 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
condition recognised under Sec.149(2) of Motor vehicles
Act, the insurance company is liable to pay the third party
and recover the same from the insured. In support of his
arguments, the learned counsel for petitioners has relied
on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Akula Narayana V/s The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and
another, in Civil Appeal No.013509/2025 (Arising out of
SLP (C) No.8434/2023, dated 10-11-2025.
34. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the
respondent No.1, as per the Ex.P.7 final report/charge-
sheet, at the time accident the driver of offending Tata 207
Towing Crane bearing No.KA-04-C-2800 was not holding
driving licence to drive the said vehicle and hence in
addition to the offence punishable under Sec. 279 and
304(A) of IPC, he has been charge-sheeted for offence
punishable U/Sec.3(1) R/w 181 of Motor Vehicles Act and the
owner of the offending vehicle has been charge-sheeted for
the offence punishable under Section 5(1) R/w 180 of Motor
51 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
Vehicles Act and admittedly the said final report/charge-
sheet has not been challenged either by the driver or the
owner offending vehicle. Further it is pertinent to note that,
the respondent No.2 in his Ex.P.9 reply to notice issued
under Sec.133 of Motor Vehicles Act has clearly stated that,
as on the date of accident the driver of his vehicle was not
holding driving licence to drive the said vehicle. Even, the
respondent No.2 did not choose to contest the case of the
petitioners. Therefore, in such circumstances, the
respondent No.2 cannot be permitted to take the benefit of
his wrong and the respondent No.1/Insurance Company is
entitled to raise a defence under Sec.149(2) of Motor
Vehicles Act. Further, the accident in question has taken
place after the date of coming into force of Motor Vehicles
(Amendment) Act, 2019. But, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
its recent judgment in the case of Akula Narayana V/s The
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and another, in Civil Appeal
No.013509/2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.8434/2023,
52 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
dated 10-11-2025, has upheld the principle of pay and
recovery and has clearly held that, "Where the contract of
insurance is not disputed, even on breach of insurance
conditions, this Court had allowed recovery of
compensation from the insurer by giving right to the
insurer to recover the same from the vehicle owner. The
pay and recover principle has been consistently
followed even though it was doubted in a reference
which remained unanswered. Taking a conspectus of
case of various pronouncements, this Court recently in
Rama Bai V/s Amit Minerals, reported in 2025 SCC Online
SC 2067 again applied the said principle and while
allowing the appeal of the claimant directed that, the
insurance company shall satisfy the award and may
recover from the insured. Following the aforesaid
decisions, we deem it appropriate to allow the appeal by
directing that the first respondent (i.e. the insurer) shall
satisfy the award, though, however, it can recover the
53 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
amount so paid from the insured (i.e. owner of the
vehicle)".
35. Therefore, in the light of ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited decision and for
the above stated reasons, this Court is of the opinion that,
the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to
pay the compensation to the petitioners. However, the
primary liability is on the respondent No.1 to pay the
compensation to the petitioners and later recover the same
from the respondent No.2. Accordingly, it is held that, the
respondent No.1 is liable to pay the above compensation of
Rs.35,48,100/- to the petitioners in MVC No.4399/2022 and
Rs.27,84,000/- to the petitioners in MVC No.4400/2022, with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of
petitions till its realization, to the petitioners and recover
the same from the respondent No.2. Accordingly, I answer
Issue No.2 in Partly Affirmative.
54 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022
36. Issue No.3: In view of the above findings, I proceed to
pass the following order:
ORDER
The petitions are partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners in MVC
No.4399/2022 are entitled to
compensation of Rs.35,48,100/- (Rupees thirty five lakh forty eight thousand and one hundred only), with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation.
The petitioners in MVC No.4400/2022 are entitled to compensation of Rs.27,84,000/- (Rupees twenty seven lakh eighty four thousand only), with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondent No.1 & 2 in both the two cases are jointly and severally 55 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w MVC No.4400/2022 liable to pay the above compensation amount to the petitioners. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fastened on respondent No.1 - Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the said amount within two months from the date of this order and recover the same from the respondent No.2, in the very proceedings by filing an execution petition.
The above compensation amount in MVC No.4399/2022 is apportioned as follows:
Petitioner No.1 - Daughter- 25% Petitioner No.2 - Daughter - 25% Petitioner No.3 - Father- 25% Petitioner No.4 - Mother - 25% The entire compensation amount awarded in favour of petitioners No.1 and 2 in MVC No.4399/2022, with proportionate interest shall be deposited in their names as fixed 56 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w MVC No.4400/2022 deposit in any nationalized bank till they attain the age of majority. Out of total compensation amount awarded in favour of petitioners No.3 and 4 in MVC No.4399/2022, 40% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in their names as fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for the period of three years with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining 60% amount with proportionate interest shall be released in their favour, through e-payment on proper identification and verification. The above compensation amount in MVC No.4400/2022 is apportioned as follows:
Petitioner No.1 - Mother- 30% Petitioner No.2 - Daughter - 35% Petitioner No.3 - Daughter- 35% Out of total compensation amount awarded in favour of petitioner No.1 in 57 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w MVC No.4400/2022 MVC No.4400/2022, 40% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in her name as fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for the period of three years with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining 60% amount with proportionate interest shall be released in her favour, through e-payment on proper identification and verification.
The entire compensation amount awarded in favour of petitioners No.2 and 3 in MVC No.4400/2022, with proportionate interest shall be deposited in their names as fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till they attain the age of majority.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- each in both the cases.
Draw award accordingly in both the cases.58 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w
MVC No.4400/2022 A copy of this judgment shall be kept in file of MVC No.4400/2022. (Dictated to the stenographer, directly on computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this the 9 th day of January, 2026) (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners:
P.W.1: Anjanappa S/o Late Hanumanthappa P.W.2: Hanumakka W/o Late Balappa Documents marked on behalf of petitioners:
Ex.P.1: True copy of F.I.R. Ex.P.2: True copy of First Information Statement. Ex.P.3: True copy of Spot Mahazar and Sketch Ex.P.4: True copy of M.V.A. Report Ex.P.5: True copy of Inquest Ex.P.6: True copy of Post-mortem Report Ex.P.7: True copy of Charge-sheet Ex.P.8: True copy of Notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act Ex.P.9: True copy of Reply to Notice under Section 59 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w MVC No.4400/2022 133 of Motor Vehicles Act Ex.P.10: True copy of Fast Tag Statement Ex.P.11: Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of Deceased Ex.P.12 to Notarized copy of Aadhar Cards of 15: Petitioners No.1 to 4 Ex.P.16: True copy of Inquest Ex.P.17: True copy of Post-mortem Report Ex.P.18: Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of Deceased Ex.P.19: Notarized copy of Driving Licence of Deceased Ex.P.20 to Notarized copy of Aadhar Cards of 22: Petitioners No.1 to 4
Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
R.W.1: Rajkumar S/o Shivappa R.W.2: Shyam M. S/o Mahadev R.W.3: Sridhar K. K. S/o Kariyappa R.W.4: Saurabh Chaudhary S/o Dharmender R.W.5: Thrishi Subbaiah D/o Subbaiah Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1: Report Ex.R.2: Authorization Letter Ex.R.3: True copy of Contract of Agreement Ex.R.4: True copy of Maintenance and Repair Bill Ex.R.5: Letter dated 06-03-2020 issued by Police
Inspector, Peenya Traffic Police Station 60 MVC No.4399/2022 C/w MVC No.4400/2022 Ex.R.6: Reply Letter dated 23-03-2020 Ex.R.7: Letter dated 16-07-2021 issued by Police Inspector, Peenya Traffic Police Station Ex.R.8: Reply Letter dated 09-08-2021 Ex.R.9: Letter dated 14-09-2021 issued by Police Commissioner, Bengaluru Ex.R.10: Reply Letter dated 25-09-2021 Ex.R.11: Letter dated 24-09-2021 issued by Police Commissioner, Bengaluru Ex.R.12: Reply Letter dated 14-10-2021 Ex.R.13: Reminder Letter dated 18-12-2021 issued by National Highway Authority Ex.R.14: Letter dated 17-02-2022 issued by Police Commissioner, Bengaluru Ex.R.15: Reply Letter dated 29-03-2022 Ex.R.16: Letter dated 09-08-2022 issued by Police Inspector, Peenya Traffic Police Station Ex.R.17: Reply Letter dated 16-08-2022 Ex.R.18: Letter dated 27-09-2022 issued by Police Inspector, Peenya Traffic Police Station Ex.R.19: Reply Letter dated 29-09-2022 Ex.R.20: Authorization Letter Ex.R.21: True copy of Insurance Policy Ex.R.22: True copy of Notice issued to owner of vehicle (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.