Bangalore District Court
Kousar Khanum vs Sriramappa on 13 January, 2026
SCCH-8 1 MVC No.5829/2021
KABC020346452021
IN THE COURT OF XII ADDL. SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
(SCCH-08)
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF JANUARY - 2026
PRESENT: Smt. Kannika M.S.
M.A. LL.B,
XII ADDL. SCJ & ACJM
MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU.
M.V.C. No.5829/2021
Petitioner/s: 1. Mrs. Kousar Khanum,
W/o. Irshad Khan,
Aged about 34 years.
2. Mr. Irshad Khan,
S/o Kareem Khan,
Aged about 39 years,
Both are residing at:
Near HKM School
Shahinsha Nagar,
Kolar town and district.
(By Sri. N. Manjunath -Advocate)
Vs.
Respondent/s: 1. Sri. Sriramappa,
S/o. Munivenkatappa,
Major by age,
R/at Chikkanahalli Majara,
SCCH-8 2 MVC No.5829/2021
Lakshmipura Village,
Shettikothanur Post,
Kolar Taluk and district.
(By Sri. Suman K.- Advocate)
2. M/s. Iffco Tokiyo, General
Insurance company Limited,
5th Floor, Sri. Shanthi Towers,
3rd Main, NGEF layout,
Kasthurinagar,
Bengaluru-560043.
(Policy No.MK675684)
(By Sri. T. Ramesh - Advocate)
Date of institution 28.12.2021
Nature of the Case : Seeking
Compensation/Award
Date of commencement : 20.06.2023
of Recording of evidence
Date of Judgment : 13.01.2026
pronounced
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, claiming the compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the respondents with regard to the death of Mast. Farhan Khan S/o. Irshad Khan in the road traffic accident that took place on 05.11.2021.
SCCH-8 3 MVC No.5829/20212. The brief facts of the case of the petitioners as follows:
On 05.11.2021 in the evening, Farhan Khan(hereinafter referred as deceased) was going towards shop from his house by riding bicycle slowly, cautiously on the correct side of the road at about 1.30 p.m., in front of Riyaz building, at Shahinsha Nagar, Kolar, at that time, driver of the tractor and trailer bearing Reg. No. AP-27-X-3411 and AP-27-X-3412 came from opposite direction with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over his vehicle, went to its wrong side and dashed violently against the bicycle, as a result of which Farhan Khan fell on the road and said tractor and trailer ran over him, due to impact, Farhan Khan sustained grievous crush injuries. Immediately after the accident, while he was being taken to R.L. Jalappa hospital, Kolar, he succumbed to the said injuries on the way.
3. It is further stated in the petition that, prior to the accident, the deceased was hale, healthy and he was studying in 3rd standard and he had bright future. Due to death of deceased, petitioners are put to lot of mental agony and untold misery. The accident in question was due to the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the Tractor and Trailer bearing Reg.No. AP- 27-X-3411. Hence, the 1st respondent being the owner, 2nd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
SCCH-8 4 MVC No.5829/20214. On service of notice, respondent No.1 and 2 have appeared before the court through their respective counsels and filed written statements.
5. The 1st respondent in his objection statement has denied all the petition averments and contended that respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle and the said vehicle being insured with respondent No.2 and insurance was in force and having RC, valid insurance and other vehicular documents at the time of accident. Driver of the respondent No.1 was running the said vehicle in a proper manner by following all the traffic rules, moreover he is experienced driver to drive the said vehicle. The rider of the bicycle rode the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against vehicle. The accident has occurred due to rash and negligent act of rider of bicycle, not the driver of 1st respondent. Hence on all these grounds, they have sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. The respondent No.2 in its objection statement has denied all the petition averments and admits the issuance of insurance policy in respect of the tractor and trailer and liability to indemnify the 1st respondent is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, provisions of MV Act, valid and effective driving licence held by the driver of tractor and trailer and valid RC, FC, permit and subject to the confirmation of Section 64VB of the insurance Act. This respondent seeks protection under section 147 and 149 (2) of MV Act. There is violation of Section 134(c) and SCCH-8 5 MVC No.5829/2021 158(6) of MV Act. The Tractor and trailer was not at all involved in the alleged accident. The driver of tractor and trailer was also proper and necessary party for the adjudication of the claim. The driver of tractor and trailor was not holding valid and effective DL on the date of accident. The respondent No.1 knowing fully well that the driver of the tractor and trailer did not possess valid and effective DL to drive the vehicle on the date of accident and willfully entrusted his vehicle to the said driver. The jurisdictional police after thorough investigation filed charge sheet under section 181 of MV Act. It has further contended that the compensation and interest claimed by the petitioners are excessive and exorbitant. Hence on all these grounds, it has sought for dismissal of the petition.
7. Based on the pleadings, my predecessor in office has framed following issues:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased Mast.
Farhan Khan has died in the Road Traffic Accident occurred on 3.11.2021 at about 1.30 p.m. in front of Riyaz building, Shahinsha Nagar, Kolar town and district due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor bearing Reg. No.AP-27-X-3411?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
3. What order or Award?
SCCH-8 6 MVC No.5829/20218. In order to prove the case, petitioner No.1 got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked 12 documents as per Ex.P1 to 12. The respondent No.1/Sriramappa got examined himself as RW-1 and got marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R8. The respondent No.2 got examined one Likith K.C.-Legal Executive as RW-2 and got marked Ex.R9 to 11.
9. Heard the arguments and perused the written arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and also perused the record.
10. My findings on the above issues as under:-
Issue No.1 ... In the affirmative, Issue No.2 ... Partly in the affirmative, Issue No.3 ... As per final order For the following:
REASONS
11. ISSUE NO.1: It is the case of the petitioners that, deceased Mast. Farhan Khan has died in the Road Traffic Accident occurred on 3.11.2021 at about 1.30 p.m. in front of Riyaz building, Shahinsha Nagar, Kolar town and district due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor bearing Reg. No.AP-27-X-3411. It is specifically urged that, the accident happened because of the rash and negligent act of the offending SCCH-8 7 MVC No.5829/2021 vehicle driver and as such the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
12. In order to substantiate the contentions of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 stepped into the witness box and filed her affidavit-in-lieu of oral examination-in-chief as PW1 and got marked F.I.R, F.I.S, spot mahazar, seizure mahazar, sketch, IMV report, inquest report, PM report and charge sheet as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P9.
13. This issue revolves round the sphere and ambit as to the alleged rash and negligence on the part of the driver of Trailer and tractor. The factum of negligence has to be proved like any other fact in issue. Before dwelling into analyzing the factum of alleged negligence, it is relevant to have the conceptual aspects pertaining to factum of negligence. There are four basic elements that a person has to fulfill in order to do a negligent act. These elements are as follows:
Duty: For committing a negligent act, there must be some duty on the part of the defendant. Here it is important to understand whether the defendant has taken legal duty of care towards the plaintiff.
Breach of Duty: After fulfilling the first criteria the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has breached the legal duty imposed on him/her. It talks about the breach of duty on the part of the defendant which he/ she is expected to do as he/ she has some legal duty towards the plaintiff.SCCH-8 8 MVC No.5829/2021
The action of causing something: It means that the damage caused to the plaintiff is due to the act of the defendant. Here the defendant may do an act which is not expected from him/her or the defendant may be negligent in not doing an act which was expected from him/ her.
Damages: At last what matters is, there must be some damage/injury that is caused to the plaintiff and this damages should be the direct consequence of the defendant's act.
Negligence means a breach of duty caused by omission to do something which has reasonable man guide by those consideration which ordinarily regulated conduct of human affairs would do which a prudent man would not do. In common prevalence negligence connoted to the want of proper care and the rashness conveys the idea of recklessness or the doing of an act without due consideration.
14. According to the version of petitioners the accident happened On 05-11-2021at about 1.30 p.m. when the deceased Farhan Khan riding bicycle at Shahinsha nagar, Kolar, at that time, driver of the Tractor and trailer bearing No.AP-27-X-3411 and AP-27-X-3412 came in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over his vehicle, went to its wrong side of the road and dashed violently against the deceased's bicycle, as a result Mast. Farhan Khan fell on the road and subsequently tractor and trailer ran over him and caused the accident. It is pertinent to note that, the criminal law was set in motion on the same day of accident as per Ex.P.2. Ex.P.1 FIR has its germane in Ex.P2. The document SCCH-8 9 MVC No.5829/2021 which sheds light on the factum of negligence are Ex.P.3 being the Spot Mahazar and Ex.P5 Sketch prepared at the time of mahazar. On close perusal of the Ex.P.3 and Ex.P5 it reflects that deceased was riding the bicycle at that time, driver of the Tractor and trailer bearing No.AP-27-X-3411 & AP-27-X-3412 came in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over his vehicle, went to its wrong side of the road and dashed violently against the deceased's bicycle. The said factum is also fortified with the IMV report. If the driver of Tractor and trailer had driven the said vehicle in a normal speed by observing movements of the other road users and vehicles, then he would certainly avoided the accident. Added more, the contents of Ex.P.6 which is the IMV report itself discloses that there are no mechanical defects whatsoever in the offending vehicle. Even the chargesheet as per Ex.P9 was also filed as against the driver of the Tractor and trailor under section 279, 304(A) of IPC, r/w. Section 181 of MV Act. When such is the case having regard to Ex.P.3 and 5 coupled with Ex.P9 charge sheet it is crystal clear that, the accident happened because of rash and negligence driving of the Tractor and trailer.
15. It is necessary to reassert that in a claim for compensation filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant is expected to prove the incident on basis of principle of preponderance of probabilities and the view taken by this Court is fortified by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kusum and others V/s Satbir and others which is reported in 2011 SAR (CIVIL) 319. Further the SCCH-8 10 MVC No.5829/2021 Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530 has observed that, it is necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants are merely required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied.
Further the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishnappa and another reported in 2001 ACJ 1105, where the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka considering the fact that the rider of the offending vehicle was not examined to prove any contributory negligence on the part of scooterist held that the accident had occurred due to rash or negligent driving by the driver of the offending van.
Even in the instant case the driver of the offending vehicle is not examined to show that there was no negligence on his part and even otherwise the IO, as already observed, has clearly opined that the accident occurred only due to the fault of the driver of the Tractor and trailer and he was charge sheeted.
16. Further though PW.1 was cross examined by respondent counsel at length, nothing is elicited from her mouth with regard to the negligence on the part of deceased and on the other hand the petitioners with the help of Ex.P4 and P5 coupled with Ex.P9 clearly demonstrated that there is a negligence on the SCCH-8 11 MVC No.5829/2021 part of offending vehicle driver. Viewed from any angle this court does not find any reason to distrust the version of the petitioners herein. The discussion supra makes it is abundantly clear that, the accident occurred solely due to the rash negligent driving of the Tractor and Trailer bearing Reg. No.AP-27-X-3411 and AP-27- X-3412 by its driver. As such, this Tribunal answers issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
17. Issue No.2: While answering issue No.2, I have already observed that the death of Mast. Farhan Khan was occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicle Tractor and Trailer bearing Reg. No.AP-27-X-3411 and AP-27-X- 3412. The petitioner No.1 is stated to be the mother and petitioner No.2 stated to be father of the deceased. To prove the same, petitioner No.1 filed affidavit in lieu of her chief-examination and deposed about the above relationship. The Aadhar cards at Ex's.P.10 to 12 and contents of the police papers do fortify the said fact. It is pertinent to note that the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased has not been disputed by the respondents. Since the evidence led by the petitioners is satisfactory and also taking into consideration the fact that there are no rival claimants, this Tribunal hold that the petitioners are the legal representative of the deceased. Therefore, petitioners are the legal heir and dependents of deceased and they are entitled for compensation.
SCCH-8 12 MVC No.5829/202118. To prove the age of the deceased, the petitioners have placed, inquest report, PM report and Aadar card marked at Ex.P7, P8 and P10. In the said documents, the age of the deceased has been mentioned as 9 years. Alleged accident had occurred on 5-11-2021. If the said date has been taken into consideration, as on the date of the accident, deceased minor Farhan Khan was aged about 9 years. Hence, it is apt in the case on hand, to take the age of the deceased as 9 years, as on the date of the accident. Since the deceased is below the age of 15 years multiplier applicable is 13 as per the decision in 2009 ACJ 1298.
19. In connection with the income, the deceased aged about 9 years and it is admitted that, one cannot earn anything except the work of playing and reading. On the other hand, another view is to be reproduced herein that, if at all the child was alive, he would have become the asset to the society and earning member, as well as the backbone to his family, to look after his parents. In our Society, it is an expectation of every parent that their children would take care of them when they are old, infirm and incapable of earning for themselves and children would support them morally and financially in order to lead a comfortable life in their twilight years. In fact, in this phase of their lives, there is an absolute and real financial dependency on their children.
SCCH-8 13 MVC No.5829/202120. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions:
2025 ACJ 1624 (Karuna Parmar vs. Prakash Sinha and others) Civil Appeal No.10278/2025 (Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and another)
21. In the case of a deceased minor aged nine years, the law is settled that a minor cannot be treated as a non-earner for the purposes of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The notional income of the child should be determined by adopting, at least, the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the relevant State as per the prevailing rates. Thereafter, appropriate future prospects, deduction for personal expenses, and the statutory multiplier are to be applied to arrive at the compensation for loss of dependency, along with other heads such as loss of estate and funeral expenses. This approach is in consonance with the recent Supreme Court pronouncement in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr. (2025) and similar High Court decisions."
22. Further, in the decision reported in 2025 ACJ 1624 (SC) (C.A Nos.2317 & 2318/2025) dated between Karuna Parmar and Prkash Sinha & others, wherein it is held as under:
"Quantum-Fatal accident-Deceased a girl aged 6- Claimants: parents-Tribunal fixed income at Rs.21,000 p.a., and warded Rs.5,30,000 - Apex Court SCCH-8 14 MVC No.5829/2021 relying on minimum wages of a skilled worker in 2014 fixed income at Rs.6,690/ p.m., added 40 percent of the income towards future prospects, deducted 50 per cent for personal expenses, adopted multiplier of 18 and allowed Rs.10,11,528 plus Rs.18,150 for funeral expenses-Award of Rs.5,30,000 enhanced to Rs.11,44,628."
23. Further in the said decision also it is observed that, "minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the concerned state has to be taken into consideration because that would be the minimum amount which he would have earned on becoming a major."
24. In the instant case, the petitioners have lost their child aged about 9 years in the accident, if he would have become a major, earned atleast minimum wages. By relying the principle laid down referred supra, it is apt to take minimum wages by zone and skill level for the year 2021-2022, it is just and proper to take the income of deceased as Rs.15,000/- p.m.
25. In the present case, deceased was aged about 9 years as per the above citation, the multiplier applied '18' is applicable. The income is taken at Rs.15,000/- per month, added 40 per cent of the income towards future prospects (Rs.15,000+6,000), it comes to Rs.21,000/-. Deducted 50 per cent for personal expenses it comes to Rs.10,500/- (Rs.21,000-10,500). This income has to be SCCH-8 15 MVC No.5829/2021 multiplied by multiplier "18" which comes to Rs.22,68,000/-. (10,500x12x18). Hence, the petitioners are entitled for Rs.22,68,000/-.
26. In this case, petitioner No.1 and 2 are the mother and father of the deceased. As per the decision reported in (2018) 12 SCC 130 between Magma General Insurance Company Limited V/s Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, the petitioners are entitled for filial consortium, as the filial consortium is the right of the parents and family members to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose of their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their oral in the family unit. Therefore, petitioner No.1 and 2 are entitled for Rs.44,000/- each under the head loss of Filial Consortium.
27. Further, as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in National Insurance company Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, the compensation towards loss to the estate, funeral expenses and consortium to be awarded. Hence this Tribunal award Rs.16,500/- towards loss to estate and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses as enhanced at the rate of 10% on every 3 years.
28. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the SCCH-8 16 MVC No.5829/2021 petitioners are entitled for total compensation under the following heads:
Compensation heads Compensation
amount
1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.22,68,000/-
2. Towards loss of Filial Rs.88,000/-
Consortium to the petitioners
No.1 and 2(44,000x2)
3. Towards loss to Estate Rs.16,500/-
4. Towards transportation of Rs.16,500/-
dead body funeral and obsequies
ceremony expenses
Total Rs.23,89,000/-
In all the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.23,89,000/-.
29. As regard the apportionment of the compensation, petitioners No.1 and 2 mother and father of the deceased. Therefore out of the total compensation, the petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled for compensation at the ratio of 50:50.
30. The petitioners are claiming interest on the compensation amount. Our Hon'ble High Court in the case rendered in Vijay Ishwar Jadhav and others Vs Ulrich Belchior Fernandes and another (MFA.No.100090/2014 C/W MFA.No.25107/2013 dated 07.03.2018), has held that in the absence of any other law relating to interest on judgments, the SCCH-8 17 MVC No.5829/2021 MACT has to follow the provisions of Sec.34 of C.P.C and awarded interest @ 6% per annum. Considering the aforesaid decision, I deem it proper to award interest at 6% per annum on the above compensation amount.
31. Liability: Regarding fixation of liability, it is already observed that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending Tractor and Trailer bearing Registration Nos. AP-27-X-3411 and AP-27-X-3412.
32. Respondent No.2 contended that the jurisdictional police, after thorough investigation, have filed the charge sheet under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, stating that the driver of the Tractor and Trailer was not possessing a valid driving licence as on the date of accident and, therefore, there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and as such the insurer is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. In support of this contention, the Legal Executive of Respondent No.2 was examined as RW-2, who marked the authorisation letter, copy of the policy and copy of the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle as Ex.R-9 to Ex.R-11.
33. On the other hand, Respondent No.1, being the owner of the offending vehicle, contended that the Tractor and Trailer were insured with Respondent No.2 and that he was having the registration certificate, valid insurance policy and other vehicular documents as on the date of accident. He further contended that SCCH-8 18 MVC No.5829/2021 he had appointed the driver after verification of his driving licence and that there was no fault on the part of the driver in the occurrence of the accident. In support of his contention, he examined himself as RW-1 and marked documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-8, namely PAN Card, Voter ID Card, Aadhaar Card, Ration Card, Driving Licence, RC copies and Insurance Policy.
34. In the case on hand, there is no dispute with regard to the permit. Respondent No.2 has disputed only the validity of the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. On perusal of the charge sheet marked as Ex.P-9, it is clear that the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Though Respondent No.1 contended that he had appointed the driver after verification of a valid driving licence, on perusal of Ex.R-11, the driving licence of the offending vehicle driver Yuvaraj, it is seen that the said licence was issued on 01.08.2022 and is valid till 31.07.2032, whereas the accident occurred on 05.11.2021. Therefore, it is evident that the driving licence was obtained much after the accident.
35. Thus, it is clear that the offending Tractor and Trailer were driven by the driver Yuvaraj without holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. The charge sheet further establishes that Respondent No.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy by permitting a person without a valid SCCH-8 19 MVC No.5829/2021 driving licence to drive the vehicle. Hence, Respondent No.1 has committed breach of the policy conditions.
36. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in between Rajanna and another vs. Abasaheb and another(2024 ACJ 2816)
37. Further on the same point of law cited by the petitioner counsel, it is also relevant to rely on the judgment in MFA-6154/2019 in the case of Smt. Hemalatha @ Hema @ Hemavathi and others v/s Bajaj Allianz Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka after considering the judgment of the Apex Court in (I) Pappu V/s Vinod Kumar Lamba, (ii) Bishan Devi v. Surbakshi Singh (iii) Shamanna V/s Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd., (iv) Iffco Tokio Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd V/s Geeta Devi
(v) National Ins.Co.Ltd., V/s Swarna Singh it clearly distinguished the factum of no DL and fake DL and observed as hereunder :
27. Learned Counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh's, Pappu's, and Shamanna's cases referred to supra, to contend that, even if there is no driving license the insurer is liable to pay the damages to the claimants and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Those judgments referred to the principle of pay and recovery in case of breach of policy condition for disqualification of the driver to hold the license or holding of an invalid driving license. They did not relate to a case of no driving license at all.
28. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants relied on Bishan Devi's case referred to supra to contend that even in case SCCH-8 20 MVC No.5829/2021 of no license also, the insurer is liable. Plain reading of the said judgment shows that in that case it was held that the insurer had failed to prove its defence that vehicle was driven by a person without license. In the present case the defence of the insurer that the offending vehicle was driven by a person having no license and the same is proved. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
29. Respondent No2 - the owner of the vehicle neither contested the petition by filing written statement nor adduced any evidence claiming that he did not consciously permit Arun Kumar to ride the vehicle. Arun Kumar rode the vehicle without driving license was not impeached by him thereby the Tribunal was justified in holding that respondent No.2 permitted operating of the vehicle by an unauthorized person. The said act of respondent No.2 amounts to fundamental breach of policy condition within the meaning of Section of 149(2)(a)(ii) of the MV Act. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in exonerating the insurer on the ground that there is fundamental breach of policy condition.
38. Now the next question that arises, whether this Tribunal can direct the respondent No.2/Insurance company to pay the award amount together with interest and then recover the same from the insured/respondent No.1. It is relevant to note that the Doctrine of 'Pay and Recover' was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 between National Insurance Company V/s Swaran Singh, wherein the liability of the Insurance company was examined in cases of breach of policy condition, the insurer has to indemnify the award amount to the third party and recover the same from the insurer. Hence it is clear that the statutory liability is on the SCCH-8 21 MVC No.5829/2021 Insurance company as per Sec.149 of IMV Act, to pay the compensation first to the claimant and thereafter the insurance company may recover the same from the owner of offending vehicle.
In the recent decision reported in 2018 ACJ 690 (Pappu & others V/s Vinod Kumar Lamba & another) also the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the mere fact that the vehicle was duly insured would not perse make the Insurance company liable. However the Apex Court directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount and recover the same from owner of the vehicle. This court gave anxious consideration to the principles laid down by the constitutional courts in the above said decision. In view of the above discussion and the principles laid down in the above said decisions relied by petitioner counsel is aptly applicable to the facts and circumstance of this case.
39. Therefore following the ratio laid down in the decisions cited supra, this Tribunal intends that it is just and proper to direct the insurer i.e., Respondent No.2 to pay the amount together with interest @ 6% p.a, from the date of accident till realization of entire award amount to the petitioner herein. However the respondent No.2 is at liberty to recover the award amount together with the interest so paid, from the insured/ Respondent No.1, in appropriate execution proceedings as held in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Nanjappan & others, reported in (2004) 13 SCC 224. With this observation, I answered Issue No.2 'Partly in the affirmative'.
SCCH-8 22 MVC No.5829/202140. Issue No.3: In view of my findings on issues No.1 and 2, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed in part with cost.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.23,89,000/-(Rupees Twenty three lakhs eighty nine thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
The respondent No.2 is hereby directed to pay the aforesaid award amount together with interest to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order, with liberty to recover the same from the insured/respondent No.1 in appropriate execution proceedings as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd V/s Nanjappan & others reported in (2004) 13 SCC 224.
On deposit of the award amount together with interest, the claimants are entitled for the compensation amount by way of apportionment as follows:
Petitioner No.1 - 50% Petitioner No.2 - 50% Out of the share amount of Petitioner No.1 and 2 a sum equal to 50% shall be deposited in their respective names in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank of their choice for a period of 3 years and the remaining amount shall be released to them through E-payment on proper identification and verification.
However the said petitioners are at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on the deposit amount from time to time.
SCCH-8 23 MVC No.5829/2021Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 13th day of January, 2025) Digitally signed by KANNIKA KANNIKA M S MS Date: 2026.01.28 15:15:01 +0530 (Kannika M.S.) XII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Kousar Khanum Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P.1 True copy of FIR Ex.P.2 True copy of First Information Statement Ex.P.3 True copy of Spot mahazar Ex.P.4 True copy of Seizure mahazar Ex.P.5 True copy of Sketch Ex.P.6 True copy of IMV report Ex.P.7 True copy of Inquest report Ex.P.8 True copy of PM report Ex.P.9 True copy of charge sheet Ex.P.10 to 12 3 Adhaar cards
Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents:
RW-1 Sriramappa
RW-2 Likith K.C.
SCCH-8 24 MVC No.5829/2021
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R1 Notarised copy of Pan card
Ex.R2 Notarised copy of Election identity card
Ex.R3 Notarised copy of Adhar card
Ex.R4 Notarised copy of Ration card
Ex.R5 Notarised copy of DL
Ex.R6 & 7 Notarised copy of RC
Ex.R8 Notarised copy of Policy
Ex.R9 Authorisation letter
Ex.R10 Notarised copy of Policy copy
Ex.R11 Notarised copy of DL
KANNIKA Digitally signed by
KANNIKA M S
MS Date: 2026.01.28
15:15:06 +0530
(Kannika M.S.)
XII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes &
Member MACT, Bengaluru.
**********