Bangalore District Court
Sneha Caterers vs Sms Transport on 1 July, 2025
KABC020388582022
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU.
(SCCH-24)
Presided Over by: Smt. Roopashri, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACJM,
MEMBER - MACT,
BENGALURU.
Dated:- This the 1st day of July 2025
M.V.C. No.7360 OF 2022
PETITIONERS
M/s Sneha Caterers,
"Sneha" No.467-468,
9th cross, 1st Block,
Jayanagara,
Bangalore -560011.
Represented by its Partner,
Sri. B.S.Avinash,
Son of late Sri B.S. Srinivas Murthy,
Aged about 48 years,
'Sneha', No.467-468, 9th cross,
1st Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore -560 011.
(By M.S Ashwin Kumar, Advocate)
- Vs -
SCCH-24 2 MVC 7360/2022
RESPONDENT/S:
1. M/s SMS Transport,
No.19, Chandra Nilayam,
Vivekananda Road, 1st Floor,
1st Main, 8th Cross, R.M.Nagar,
Bangalore -560 016.
represented by its Proprietor,
(RC owner of the vehicle
bearing No.KA-01-AA-9316
Ashok Leyland LPG Tanker)
2. Sri Shivanagouda.G.Hansannor,
Son of Sri Girigouda Hansanoor,
Aged about 23 years,
Resident of Navilhole, Badami,
Bagalkot, Karnataka.
(Driver of vehicle bearing
No.KA-01-AA-9316
Ashok Leyland LPG Tanker)
3. M/s United India Insurance
Company Ltd.,
No.146, 1st floor,
V.D. Chandru Building,
4th cross, 1st main,
Opposite Bank of Baroda,
Besides Devi Printers,
K.R Puram, Bangalore -560 036.
(Insurer of vehicle bearing
No.KA-01-AA-9316
Ashok Leyland LPG Tanker)
4. M/s TATA AIG General Insurance
Company Limited
Regd. Office: 15th floor,
SCCH-24 3 MVC 7360/2022
Tower A, Penisula Business Park,
Ganapatrao Kadam Marg,
Off Senapathi Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013.
(Insurer of Mercedez Benz SUV
bearing Reg.No.KA-41-MB-4343)
(R1 & R2-Exparte
R3-By Sri K.R Shivananda Advocate
R4-By Sri Muralidhar Negavar Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents, claiming compensation of Rs.56,52,815.60/- with respect to damages caused to his vehicle in a road traffic accident.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:-
On 29-06-2022 at about 6-00 am., the petitioner was driving his Mercedes Benz SUV/Car bearing Reg.No.KA-41-MB-4343 from Jayanagar to Banaswadi through St Marks Road towards BRV Junction , at that time Ashok Leyland LPG Tanker bearing Reg.No.KA-01- AA-9316 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner moving from M G road towards Queen's Statute from East to west direction, by jumping SCCH-24 4 MVC 7360/2022 the red signal at Anil Kumble junction dashed against the petitioner's car, result of which the petitioner's car was severely damaged. Both the vehicles were subjected to inspection by the RTO. Subsequently, the petitioner's vehicle was released.
3. On account of the accident, the petitioner was without vehicle from 29-06-2022. He was put to great hardship and loss both physically, psychologically and financially. The petitioner had to use an alternative mode of transport during the said period.
4. On survey of the vehicle at the workshop of the dealer M/s Sundaram Motors, quoted sum of Rs.53,45,586-73 towards repair for the extensive damages sustained by the car.
5. The surveyor of the Insurance company after survey of the wreck of the Car recommended payment of Rs.40,62,600/- at salvage value for the damaged car.
6. The petitioner opted to avail of the offer of the Insurance company for IDV value of the car at Rs.40,62,600/- and received the said amount.
SCCH-24 5 MVC 7360/20227. In view of the above accident, the Mercedes Benz Car bearing Reg.No.KA-41-MB-4343 of the petitioner which he had maintained in show room condition was reduced to a wreck in a matter of minutes due to the rash and negligent driving of the Ashok Leyland LPG Tanker bearing Reg.No.KA-01-AA- 9316. The Mercedes Benz car for which, he had paid sum of Rs.86,15,415/- and maintained in "show room condition..." had been reduced to "salvage" value of Rs.40,62,600/- putting the petitioner to a loss due to the rash and negligent reckless and irresponsible act on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-01- AA-9316.
8. The 2nd respondent being the driver of the offending vehicle and 3rd respondent being the insurer and rest of the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.56,52,815.60/- towards compensation along with interest 21% pa.
9. In spite of service of notice, the Respondent no.1 and 2 have remained absent. Hence, they were placed ex-parte.
10. Respondent No.3- the insurer of lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-01-AA-9316 has filed written statement and SCCH-24 6 MVC 7360/2022 admitted the coverage of insurance policy and the liability if any subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. The respondent no.3 has contended that the petitioner has claimed own damages from his insurer and he is claiming the balance amount from respondent no.3 which is not permissible under law. The alleged accident was occurred due to the negligent act on the part of the petitioner himself as the petitioner had taken little care and followed the traffic rules and regulations in the busy road he could have avoided the accident and the driver of the insured vehicle has not contributed any negligence.
11. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not assessed the damages and cost of repairs from the official surveyor and the salvage value has not been considered. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to claim damages. It is further submitted that the surveyor of the Insurance Company after survey of the wreck of the car recommended payment of Rs.40,62,600/- at salvage value for the damaged car and the petitioner opted to avail the offer of the Insurance Company for the IDV value of the car at Rs.40,62,600/-. Hence, he is not entitled to claim any compensation from the respondent no.3.
SCCH-24 7 MVC 7360/202212. The respondent No.4 - the insurer of car having admitted the coverage of Insurance policy submitted that they have settled the own damages claim as per the insured declared value of the vehicle as declared in the Insurance Policy. Hence, petition as against the respondent no.4 is not maintainable as they are not a third party. Hence, submitted to dismiss the petition against the respondent no.4.
13. On the basis of rival pleadings following issues have been framed;
1) Whether the petitioner proves that the Mercedes Benz SUV/car bearing Reg.No.KA-41-MB-4343 was badly damaged in the Road Traffic Accident due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Ashok Leyland LPG Tanker bearing Reg.No.KA-01-AA-9316 alleged to have been occurred on 29-06-2022 as contended in the petition?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extend and from whom ?
3) What Order or Award?
14. In order to prove the above issue, the petitioner got examined himself as PW.1 and got SCCH-24 8 MVC 7360/2022 marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18. On the other hand, the respondent no.3 has examined its Administrative officer as Rw.1 and got marked documents as Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.
15. Heard arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and respondent No.3 and 4 and perused the entire materials placed on record.
16. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative
Issue No.2: Does not survive for consideration
Issue No.3: As per final order,
for the following;
REASONS
17. Issue No.1 : - In order to explain the actionable negligence of the rider of offending vehicle, the P.W.1 has filed his affidavit explaining that, on n 29- 06-2022 at about 6-00 am., when he was driving his Mercedes Benz SUV/Car bearing Reg.No.KA-41-MB- 4343 from Jayanagar to Banaswadi through St Marks Road towards BRV Junction, at that time Ashok Leyland LPG Tanker bearing Reg.No.KA-01-AA-9316 (hereinafter SCCH-24 9 MVC 7360/2022 referred to as the offending vehicle) driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner moving from M.G road towards Queen's Statute from East to west direction, by jumping the red signal at Anil Kumble junction dashed against the petitioner's car, result of which the petitioner's car was severely damaged.
18. In support of the claim and to prove the rash and negligent driving, the P.W.1 has relied upon Ex.P1 to 9 which are the police records such as Inspection letter, Charge sheet, FIR, Statement of petitioner, Panchanama, Spot sketch, Eye witness statement, Report of RTO and affidavits, which are the material documents to prove the present issue.
19. On the basis of the complaint lodged by petitioner/B.S. Avinash, case has been registered against the driver of offending vehicle in Crime No.0024/2022 of Cubbonpark Traffic Police Station for the offence punishable under section 279 of IPC and u/s 119, 177 of MV Act. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer has filed charge sheet against the driver of offending vehicle for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and u/s 119, 177 of MV Act.
SCCH-24 10 MVC 7360/202220. As per the case of the petitioner, as on the date of accident he was proceeding from Jayanagar to Banaswadi through St. Marks road towards BRV Junction and the offending vehicle which came from M.G road towards Queens Statue jumped the red signal at Anil Kumble Junction and dashed against the vehicle of the petitioner, result of which the vehicle of the petitioner was badly damaged. If the spot mahazar and sketch is perused, petitioner was proceeding straight road and the offending vehicle which came from M.G road towards Queen's Statute has dashed against the vehicle of the petitioner. It is categorically deposed by the PW.1 that, at the junction there was green signal for them to proceed ahead whereas there was red signal for the driver of the offending vehicle to stop the vehicle, but the driver by violating the traffic rules, jumped the signal and dashed to the vehicle of the petitioner. The respondent no.3 though has cross examined the PW.1 at length and disputed the manner of accident but they have not adduced any contra evidence to rebut the evidence placed by the petitioner. If really, the accident in question was not occurred in the manner stated by the petitioner, then nothing prevented the respondent no.3 from summoning the driver of the offending vehicle and to examine him. As observed supra, the respondent SCCH-24 11 MVC 7360/2022 no.1 and 2 who are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle have remained ex-parte. Hence, there is no materials on record to give findings against the case of the petitioner's, so far as point no.1 is concerned.
21. The learned counsel for respondent no.3 has disputed the competency of PW.1 to file the petition and to give evidence. It is submitted by the learned counsel for respondent no.3 that PW.1 is not the RC owner of the offending vehicle and that though the PW.1 has stated that Sneha Caterers is a partnership firm and that himself and his mother are the partners of the said firm but his mother who is one of the partner has not given power of attorney to the PW.1 to give evidence on her behalf. The learned counsel at this junction has relied upon the judgment reported in ILR 2000 Kar 2009 between KSRTC Vs. George Ninum wherein it was observed that "In the absence of any material to show that the claimant was the owner of the car, the claim petition itself was not maintainable". In the said case, "The claimant even after giving sufficient opportunity by the Hon'ble High Court in the Appeal has failed to produce the necessary documents as additional evidence to prove that he was the owner of the damaged SCCH-24 12 MVC 7360/2022 vehicle as on the date of accident and he has not produced any document to prove that he appointed one Anwar as his Power of Attorney to present the claim petition. Hence dismissed the claim petition as not maintainable.
22. Now coming to the case in hand, the petitioner has produced partnership deed as per Ex.P17 dated 16-08-2007 which clearly indicates that Sri B S Avinash and his mother Smt. Prabha Murthy are the partners of M/s Sneha Caterers and Mr B S Avinash who has represented Sneha Caterers in the present petition is the working partner of the firm. If the partnership deed is read in whole, at column no.15 inter-alia there is condition not to withdraw any suit or legal proceedings filed by the firm without consent of other partner/s. There is no any condition restraining the partner from initiating the proceedings without the consent of other partners. The petitioner has produced RC of the damaged vehicle which is in the name of M/s Sneha Caterers. When B S Avinash has proved that he is one of the partner of M/S Sneha Caterers and when RC is standing in the name of Sneha Caterers it can be said that B S Avinash has authority to file the claim petition on behalf of M/S Sneha Caterers.
SCCH-24 13 MVC 7360/202223. As petitioner has proved the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle result of which it dashed against the vehicle of the petitioner and caused damages to the said vehicle, this court holds issue no.1 in the Affirmative.
24. Issue No.2:- The petitioner has given evidence to the effect of damage caused to his vehicle as the impact of the accident. The petitioner has produced his driving license, Insurance policy, RC, Invoice issued by Advaith Motors Pvt Ltd., Tax paid receipt, photographs pertaining to the damaged vehicle and its Pen drive marked as Ex.P 10 to 12, 14 and Ex.P18 respectively.
25. The learned counsel for respondent no.3 and 4 have vehemently submitted that since the petitioner has already received compensation of Rs.40,62,600/- under OD claim from the insurer of the vehicle of the petitioner I.e, respondent no.4 towards full and final settlement of the claim, the claim made against the respondent no.3 and 4 is not maintainable. The learned counsel for respondent no.3 at this juncture has referred the judgment reported in 2005 ACJ 1332 between Harkhu Bai & Ors., Vs. Jiyaram & Ors., wherein the Hon'ble SCCH-24 14 MVC 7360/2022 High Court has observed that "when the payment was received by the claimant in full and final settlement of his claim without any reservation or demur, in the absence of any material to show that the claim paid by the other Insurance company represented a part only of the total damage, the rejection of the claim for any other payment is justified".
26. In MFA No. 5788/2013 between Sri Kumarvel Janakiram Vs., The National Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors., decided on 22-04-2024, In the said case also by referring the judgment of Division Bench in Harkhu Bai case, it was observed that "since the claimant has received damages from his Insurance Company towards full and final settlement of claim without any reservation or demur, he is not entitled claim compensation from the Insurer of offending vehicle by filing claim petition and accordingly claim petition filed by the petitioner against the Insurer of the offending vehicle was dismissed".
27. The Learned counsel for respondent no.4 has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Karntaka in MFA no. 5716 of 2010 between Ramesh Padiyar Vs. M N Laxminarayana Manja & Anr., SCCH-24 15 MVC 7360/2022 decided on 15-02-2019, wherein also the petitioner got the compensation from his Insurance Company towards damages caused to his vehicle in full and final settlement. It was observed that "Once the owner of the vehicle claimed compensation for the damages caused to the vehicle from its insurer and accepted the amount in full and final settlement of the claim, the owner of the said vehicle cannot claim compensation from the opposite vehicle Insurance Company and accordingly dismissed the petition".
28. In MFA No. 4423/2013 between M/s MCCREADE SOFTWARE (ASIA) Rep., by its Managing Director Vs. Srinivas K & Ors., decided on 09-09-2015 wherein also the observation made in Harkhu Bai case was referred to and observed that "when the claimant has got the loss suffered due to the damages caused in the accident assessed through its surveyor and loss assessor and received the OD claim of the petitioner in full and final settlement and when neither in the pleading nor in the evidence the claimant has made any effort to demonstrate that the amount received from its own insurer was not in full and final settlement and when the evidence of insurer is categorical to the effect that the payment made by the insurer is full and final SCCH-24 16 MVC 7360/2022 settlement of the claim, the claim petition filed by the claimant is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the claim petition".
29. Per contra, the learned counsel for petitioner has referred the judgment rendered in MFA No. 133/2005 between Hanumanthappa Vs. Ganapathi R Kini & Ors., decided on 03-01-2007. In the said case, "before the Tribunal the claimant had taken the stand that he was paid only Rs.60,000/- by his insurer and therefore, he had to prefer claim petition claiming the balance amount from the insurer of the other vehicle. But the tribunal has rejected the claim petition at the thresh hold". It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court that "when such being the nature of pleadings of the claimant, the tribunal ought to have given an opportunity to the claimant to establish the above said fact and upon the evidence, if the tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant was paid compensation in full and final settlement of his claim, thereafter the tribunal would have been justified in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant and accordingly remanded the matter to the M.A.C.T for fresh consideration after affording opportunity to all the SCCH-24 17 MVC 7360/2022 parties and to dispose of the case in accordance with law".
30. The learned counsel for petitioner has referred Harkhu Bai case. The said judgment is even referred by the respondent no.3 and the observation made in the said judgment is already reproduced herein above.
31. In MFA No. 6841/2013 decided on 18-12-2023 between Hemanth Raju Vs. Sri Punitha H J & Anr., it was observed that "damages are the pecuniary compensation which is recoverable by a person who has sustained loss due to the wrongful acts or wrongful omission of another. Damage caused to the property includes not only the damage caused to the said property but also the loss of income caused due to said damage to the property. When due to the acts of other, the vehicle in use gets damaged and where proof to the effect that during the period which took for getting the vehicle repaired, the owner of the vehicle could not earn as he could to so through the use of the said vehicle is produced, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is under obligation to make good the loss sustained by the owner of the vehicle, due to the non use of the said vehicle for SCCH-24 18 MVC 7360/2022 income generation which occurred due to the fault of another".
32. It is was further observed that "when the total amount spent is not paid by the Insurer of the victim, the insurance of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the balance. In the said case, reference was made of judgment reported in 2016 ACJ 2307 between R. P Zuber v/s Basavarajappa & Anr., wherein it was observed that;
" Therefore the claimant would be having two options; one to approach the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle seeking recovery of total value of goods as compensation in addition to compensation towards personal damages or approaching his insurer and receiving the same. Assuming for a moment, if he choose to approach his insurer and takes whatever compensation is offered to him in terms of the policy as full and final settlement of his claim against his insurer, the same cannot be construed as full and final settlement of entire damages suffered by him. The full and final settlement is with reference to the right of claimant to secure compensation from his insurer. If the compensation so received falls short of the value of vehicle, then nothing prevents him from initiating proceedings against the owner of offending vehicle and its insurer for SCCH-24 19 MVC 7360/2022 recovery of the balance amount and also for other damages like compensation for personal injuries, loss of income during the period when vehicle was not available for him for his use and if it is the vehicle that is used for hire, the loss of income which he would have suffered due to non availability of said vehicle for running it on hire. Therefore, it is seen that claimant has several options. If he chooses to exhaust his remedy from his insurer to the extent he is entitled for realize under the policy issued in his favour and seeks balance amount from the owner of offending vehicle, the same cannot be construed as dual advantage of him unless the owner and insurer of offending vehicle can establish that in the guise of seeking different in the loss the claimant is collecting compensation or damages in excess of the loss he has suffered or that he is taking benefit for the same damages from both the insurance companies independently twice for same compensation then he cannot be permitted to do so".
33. In MFA No. 6416/2014 c/w MFA N. 4481/2014 between National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs., The Senior Divisional Controller & Anr., In the said case, the petitioner has taken the contention that KSRTC bus has received part of the claim towards cost of repair charges and the balance amount is payable by SCCH-24 20 MVC 7360/2022 the insurer of the offending vehicle. It was observed that the amount received by the KSRTC from the insurer of the Volvo bus cannot be construed as the payment received towards full and final settlement of its claim. It is observed that the KSRTC - owner of the Volvo bus can claim the difference amount towards cost of repair from the insurer of the offending vehicle and that the order passed by the tribunal dismissing the claim of the KSRTC is erroneous.
34. Keeping in mind the observation made in the judgment referred by the respondent no.3 and 4 on one hand and the judgment referred by the petitioner, on the other hand, if the evidence placed on record is perused, the PW.1 has categorically deposed that they have purchased Mercedes Benz car for Rs.86,15,415 and that his insurer has settled the amount only for Rs.40,62,600/- by reducing to salvage value and that the survey of the vehicle at the workshop of the dealer M/S Sundaram Motors Quoted a sum of Rs.53,45,586.79 towards repair of the vehicle and he has opted to avail of the offer of the Insurance Company for the IDV value of the car if Rs.40,62,600/-. Hence, the respondents are liable to pay sum of Rs.45,52,815.60 towards the loss incurred SCCH-24 21 MVC 7360/2022 by the petitioner towards the valuation of the car at salvage value and the expenses incurred to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for the alternative mode of transport used for the period between 30-06-2022 to 05-11-2022 and for sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the trauma/agony caused to him.
35. The learned counsel for the respondent no.3 during the course of trail has summoned the entire document from the respondent no.4 for the settlement of amount in favour of petitioner. The said document was marked with the consent of petitioner as Ex.R3.
36. Though the PW.1 has bent upon stated that they have purchased Mercedes Benz car for Rs.86,15,415/- and produced Invoice issued by the Advaith Motors Pvt Ltd., as per Ex.P12 but if Ex.P12 is perused, the said car was purchased by M/s Sneha Caterers on 22-11-2017 for a value of Rs.69,58,759/-. The annexed document to Ex.P12 discloses that M/s Sneha Caterers had paid sum of Rs.1,65,657/- towards registration charges, Insurance charges and tax and thus by paying sum of Rs.71,24,416/-, the said vehicle was purchased but not purchased for Rs.86,15,415/- as stated by the PW.1.
SCCH-24 22 MVC 7360/202237. If the Insurance policy pertaining to the vehicle of the petitioner is perused, admittedly the Insurance Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle of the petitioner was Rs.40,62,600/-. As observed supra, the vehicle in question was purchased way back in the month of November -2017. It is after lapse of nearly 5 years from the date of purchase this accident in question has occurred. The petitioner has claimed sum of Rs.45,52,815.60 which is the difference amount of the price for which he stated to have purchased the vehicle and the compensation amount he has received from his insurer ie., the difference amount between Rs.86,15,415/- and Rs.40,62,600/-. But as observed supra, the purchase value of the said vehicle is Rs.71,24,416/- but not Rs.86,15,415/-. The vehicle is of the model 2017 and as on the date of accident it was nearly 5 years old vehicle. Hence, considering the depreciation value of the said vehicle, the insurer of the petitioner has assessed the compensation at Rs.40,62,600/-. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not repaired the said vehicle but it was sold in the condition in which to a third party by the 4 th respondent and compensation of Rs.40,62,600/- was given to the petitioner. It is clearly admitted by PW.1 SCCH-24 23 MVC 7360/2022 that he has received sum of Rs.40,62,600/- from his insurer towards full and final settlement and given consent letter to receive the said amount towards full and final settlement. Ex.R3 ie., the documents summoned from the respondent no.4 fortifies the said aspect. If the consent letter dated 17-09-2022 which is included in the Ex.R3 is perused, wherein the petitioner has clearly admitted that he has received the said amount towards full and final settlement. Though the petitioner has stated in his petition at para no.4 that M/s Sundaram Motors Pvt Ltd., after survey of the vehicle at the workshop has quoted sum of Rs.53,45,856.79 towards repair of the damages sustained by the car but he has not produced the said quotation of M/s Sundaram Motors and the petitioner even has not examined them as witness. When the IDV value of the vehicle of the petitioner as on the date of accident was Rs.40,62,600/- he cannot claim compensation for the amount for which he has purchased the vehicle. When 5 years has lapsed from the date of purchase, naturally the value of the vehicle will get depreciated from year to year. Further when admittedly the petitioner has not repaired the vehicle at M/s Sundaram Motors Pvt Ltd., the quotation stated to have been given by M/s Sundaram Motors Pvt Ltd., has SCCH-24 24 MVC 7360/2022 no relevancy to the case. Further the petitioner has not produced the said quotation and has not examined any of the official from M/s Sundaram Motors Pvt Ltd., They have not even examined surveyor who has assessed the value of the vehicle.
38. As per the own averments of the petitioner, the insurer of their vehicle after survey of wreck of the car recommended payment of Rs.40,62,600/- at salvage value for the damaged car. When after survey, the salvage value of the vehicle was fixed at Rs.40,62,600/- and the said amount was entirely paid by the respondent no.4 and when the said amount was received towards full and final settlement, under such circumstances the observation made in the judgment relied by the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the present case and it can be said that the judgment referred by the respondent no.3 and 4 are aptly applicable to the case in hand. More than that the judgment referred by the petitioner is rendered by Single Bench of our Hon'ble High Court whereas the judgment referred by the respondent no.3 and 4 more particularly Harkhu Bai case is rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench, hence court has to rely upon the observation made by the Hon'ble Division Bench.
SCCH-24 25 MVC 7360/202239. So far as the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- claimed towards alternative mode of transport for the period 30-06-2022 to 05-11-2022 used by the petitioner is concerned, when the petitioner has not kept the vehicle for repair but it was sold to the third party and even RC of the said vehicle was also given to the purchaser, under such circumstances the question of petitioner using alternate mode of transport in the place of Mercedes Benz car would not arise. Further as observed supra, when sum of Rs.40,62,600/- was received by the petitioner towards full and final settlement with free consent by giving consent letter, under such circumstances it can be said that petitioner is not at all entitled for compensation as claimed in the petition and petition itself is not maintainable as against the respondents. Hence, point no.2 is answered in the Negative.
40. Issue No.3:- In the light of the findings given on Issue No.1 and 2, my finding on this issue is as per the following final order.
ORDER The claim petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.
SCCH-24 26 MVC 7360/2022Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 1st day of July 2025) (ROOPASHRI) XXII Addl. SCJ & ACJM Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witness examined on behalf of petitioner:-
Pw.1 - Sri B S Avinash List of documents marked on behalf of petitioner:-
Ex.P1 TC of Inspection letter.
Ex.P2 Charge Sheet dated 29.06.2022.
Ex.P3 FIR dated 29.06.2022.
Ex.P4 Statement of petitioner.
Ex.P5 Panchanama dated 29.06.2022.
Ex.P6 Spot Sketch dated 29.06.2022.
Ex.P7 Eye witness statement 2 in nos.
Ex.P8 Report of RTO dated 29.06.2022.
Ex.P9 Affidavits 2 in nos.
Ex.P10 DL of petitioner.
Ex.P11 Insurance policy of the petitioner vehicle
TATA AIG.
Ex.P12 Invoice issued by the Advaith motors pvt.
Ltd.,
SCCH-24 27 MVC 7360/2022
Ex.P13 Tax paid receipt of petitioner vehicle.
Ex.P14 Photographs 6 in nos.
Ex.P15 NC for Aadhar card. (Compared with
original and original is returned to the party.) Ex.P16 Pen-drive pertaining to Photographs already marked as Ex.P14.
Ex.P17 Partnership dated 18-07-2007 with respect to partnership firm Sneha Caterers Ex.P18 Certified copy of B extract of vehicle no.KA-
41-KA-4343, issued by Jnanabharathi RTO.
List of witness examined on behalf of respondents:-
RW.1 Ramesh S List of documents marked on behalf of respondents:-
Ex.R1 Authorization letter
Ex.R2 True copy of policy
XXII Addl. SCJ & ACJM
Bengaluru.