Bangalore District Court
Sravanthi D Allias Dinnepati Sravanthi vs Shaik Nasreen Thaj on 1 April, 2026
KABC020352362024
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.4198/2024
Dated this 1st day of April, 2026
Petitioners: 1. D. Sravanthi @ Dinnepati Sravanthi
W/o Late D. Anjineyulu,
Aged about 35 years,
2. D. Moulika Lakshmi D/o Late D.
Anjineyulu,
Aged about 14 years,
3. D. Divyasri D/o Late D. Anjineyulu,
Aged about 12 years,
4. D. Poonarvika D/o Late D. Anjineyulu,
Aged about 10 years,
Petitioner No.2 to 4 are minors
represented by petitioner No.1/
mother/next friend.
All are residing at Balijapalli Village,
T. Sakibanda, Cuddapah District,
2 MVC No.4198/2024
Andhra Pradesh - 516 214.
(Sri T. V. Ramesh, Advocate)
V/s
Respondents: 1. Shaik Nasreen Thaj S/o Shaik
Mubarak Basha,
Age: Major,
R/o No.1-161, Gorlamudiveedu,
Rayachoty Mandal, Annamayya Dist.,
Andhra Pradesh - 516 269.
(Ex-parte)
2. The Shriram General Insurance
Company Limited,
No.3/5, 3rd Floor, SV Arcade,
Bilakahalli Main Road,
Bannerghatta Road, IIM Post,
Bengaluru - 560 076.
(Sri D. N. Manjunatha Gupta,
Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- from the respondents, on account of death of D. Anjineyulu, 3 MVC No.4198/2024 who is husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners No.2 to 4, in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 27-05-2024, at about 5.30 p.m., the deceased D. Anjineyulu was going towards his village Balijapalli from Rayachoty side, by riding a motorcycle bearing Reg. No.AP- 39-KL-5180, slowly, cautiously, on the correct side of the road, by wearing helmet. When he reached near Srinivasapuram cross road, Rayachoty Mandal, Andhra Pradesh, one Goods Auto-rickshaw bearing Reg. No.AP-39-UJ-7012, came from Rayachoty side with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, overtook the motorcycle of the deceased and took right turn without giving any signal or indications and dashed violently against the motorcycle. Due to the said impact, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Rayachoty and thereafter he was shifted to SVIMS Hospital, Tirupathi, wherein the doctors declared him 4 MVC No.4198/2024 brought dead. Earlier to the accident the deceased was working as agriculturist/plumber and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- 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 Rayachoty Traffic Police have registered the case against the driver of the said goods auto-rickshaw for the offences punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC. The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Hence, they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition and award compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- with interest.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the respondent No.2 has appeared through its counsel and filed the written statement. Whereas, the respondent No.1 did not choose to appear and remained absent. Hence, the respondent No.1 is placed as ex-parte.
5 MVC No.4198/2024
4. The respondent No.2 in its written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has admitted the issuance of insurance policy vide policy bearing No.10003/31/24/316411, in respect of goods auto-rickshaw bearing Reg. No.AP-39-UJ-7012, in favour of respondent No.1 and its validity from 10-11-2023 to 09-11-2024 and its liability, subject to terms and conditions of the policy and the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. It has contended that, there is a delay in lodging the complaint and FIR and the petitioners are not the legal heirs of the deceased. The deceased rider was not having driving licence and his vehicle was not having insurance, as on the date of alleged accident. Further it is contended that, the petitioners are major and they are not entitled for compensation as per law. Further it is contended that, the accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the deceased/rider of motorcycle bearing Reg. No.AP- 39-KL-5180. Further it is contended that, the petition is not maintainable for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary 6 MVC No.4198/2024 parties, as the insured and insurer of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-39-KL-5180 have not been made party to this proceedings. On this ground alone the claim petition deserves to be dismissed. Further it is contended that, the owner/respondent No.1 has entrusted the vehicle knowingly to a person who did not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the alleged accident and the said vehicle was not having valid permit and fitness certificate as on the date of accident. Hence, there is a violation of terms and conditions of the policy. It has denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased and involvement of the vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-02-AD-0751 in the alleged accident. It has sought permission to contest even on behalf of respondent No.1, as per Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. For the above denials and contentions, it prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7 MVC No.4198/2024
5. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, the deceased D. Anjineyulu S/o Late D. Venkataramana has succumbed to the injuries sustained in road traffic accident, alleged to have been occurred on 25-05-2024, at about 5:30 p.m., near Srinivasapuram Cross road, Rayachoty Mandal, Annamayya District, Andhra Pradesh, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Goods Autorickshaw bearing registration No.AP-39-UJ-7012 ?
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.1 has got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked total 17 8 MVC No.4198/2024 documents as Ex.P.1 to 17. They have also examined two more witnesses namely G. Devendra and T. Chandra Mohan as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has not adduced any evidence on its behalf.
7. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the entire material placed on record.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioners that, on 27-05-2024, at about 5.30 p.m., when the deceased D. Anjineyulu was going towards his village Balijapalli from Rayachoty side, by riding his motorcycle bearing Reg. No.AP- 9 MVC No.4198/2024 39-KL-5180, slowly, on the correct side of the road and when he eached near Srinivasapuram cross road, Rayachoty Mandal, Andhra Pradesh, the offending goods auto- rickshaw bearing Reg. No.AP-39-UJ-7012 came from Rayachoty side with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, overtook the motorcycle of the deceased and took right turn without giving signal or indications and dashed violently against the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to the said impact, the deceased has fell down, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to said injuries on the way to SVIMS Hospital, Tirupathi. Further it is contended that, earlier to the accident the deceased was working as agriculturist/plumber and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- 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.
10. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 has got examined herself as P.W.1 by filing examination-in-chief 10 MVC No.4198/2024 affidavit, wherein she has reiterated the entire averments made in the petition. Further, in support of their oral evidence, the petitioners have got marked total 17 documents as Ex.P.1 to 17. Out of the said documents, Ex.P.1 is true copy of F.I.R., Ex.P.2 and 2(a) are true copy of first information statement and its translated copy, Ex.P.3 and 3(a) are true copy of F.I.R., Ex.P.4 and 4(a) are true copy of first information statement and its translated copy, Ex.P.5 and 5(a) are true copy of sketch and its translated copy, Ex.P.6 is true copy of Motor Vehicles Accident report, Ex.P.7 and 7(a) are true copy of inquest and its translated copy, Ex.P.8 is true copy of post-mortem report, Ex.P.9 is true copy of charge-sheet, Ex.P.10 to 14 are notarized copy of Aadhar cards of petitioners No.1 to 4, Ex.P.15 is notarized copy of family member certificate, Ex.P.16 is notarized copy of Aadhar card of P.W.2 and Ex.P.17 is notarized copy of Aadhar card of P.W.3.
11 MVC No.4198/2024
11. Further, the petitioners have examined two more witnesses namely G. Devendra and T. Chandra Mohan as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively, who are said to be the eye- witnesses to the accident in question. The P.W.2 and P.W.3 have deposed in consonance with the evidence of P.W.1. They have clearly deposed that, at the time of accident they were standing near Srinivasapuram cross road, Rayachoty Mandal, Andhra Pradesh. At the same time D. Anjineyulu was going towards Madanapalle town side from Rayachoty town, by riding a motorcycle bearing Reg. No.AP-39-KL-5180, slowly, cautiously, on the correct side of Rayachoty- Madanapalle main road, by wearing helmet. At that time one goods auto-rickshaw bearing Reg. No.AP-39-UJ-7012 came from Rayachoty side with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, overtook the motorcycle of the deceased and took right turn without giving any signal or indications and dashed violently against the motorcycle. Due to the said impact, the deceased has fell down and sustained grievous 12 MVC No.4198/2024 injuries. Immediately after the accident, themselves and others shifted the deceased to Government Hospital, Rayachoty and intimated about the accident to his family members. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to SVIMS Hospital, Tirupathi, wherein the doctors declared brought dead.
12. On meticulously going through the police documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 9, prima-facia it reveals that, the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending goods auto- rickshaw bearing Reg. No.AP-39-UJ-7012, overtaking the motorcycle of the deceased and taking sudden right turn without giving any signal or indications. Due to said impact the deceased D. Anjineyulu has fell down on the road, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the said injuries on the way to the hospital. The investigation officer in his final report/charge-sheet, which is marked as Ex.P.9, has clearly stated that, the said accident has taken place due 13 MVC No.4198/2024 to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending goods auto-rickshaw bearing Reg. No.AP-39-UJ-7012.
13. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that, in the present case, the date, time and place of accident, the issuance of insurance policy by the respondent No.2 in respect of offending goods auto-rickshaw bearing No.AP-39-UJ-7012 and its validity as on the date of accident, are not in dispute. Further, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners has remained undisputed by the owner of offending vehicle/Respondent No.1, as it did not choose to appear and contest the case of the petitioners. Whereas, the respondent No.2/insurer of offending vehicle has specifically denied the above averred facts and circumstances of the accident and taken specific defence that, the alleged accident has taken place solely due to rash and negligent riding of the deceased/rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.AP-39-KL-5180 himself and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the goods auto- 14 MVC No.4198/2024 rickshaw bearing Reg. No.AP-39-UJ-7012. But, it has failed to establish the said contentions. The respondent No.2 has neither adduced any evidence, nor it has produced any document to show that, at the relevant point of time of accident, the deceased was riding his motorcycle in rash and negligent manner and the said accident has taken place due to his self negligence. Even it has not stepped into witness box to depose the said contentions on oath. On the other hand, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners clearly establishes that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending goods auto-rickshaw bearing Reg. No.AP- 39-UJ-7012, overtaking the motorcycle of the deceased and taking sudden right turn without giving any signal or indications. Though, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has cross-examined P.W.1 in length, nothing worth has been brought out from her mouth, which creates doubt on the veracity of her evidence or which establishes that, the 15 MVC No.4198/2024 said accident has taken place solely due to rash and negligent riding of the deceased/rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.AP-39-KL-5180 or there was any contributory negligence on his part in the cause of accident.
14. Further, the Ex.P.5 sketch also clearly speaks that, the said accident has taken place on the right side of the Rayachoty-Madanapalli road, near Srinivasapuram cross road, Rayachoty Mandal Annamayya District, Andhra Pradesh, in between the offending goods auto-rickshaw bearing No.AP-39-UJ-7012 and motorcycle bearing No.AP-39- KL-5180 of the deceased. Further, as per the Motor Vehicle Accident report, which is marked as Ex.P.6, the accident has not taken place due to any mechanical defects in the vehicles involved in the accident. When the accident has not taken place due to any mechanical defects in the vehicles involved in the accident and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased/rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP- 39-KL-5180, then in the present facts and circumstances of 16 MVC No.4198/2024 the case, it can be presumed that, the said accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle. Further, the investigation officer in his Ex.P.9 final report/charge-sheet has clearly stated that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending goods auto-rickshaw bearing Reg. No.AP-39-UJ-7012 and the deceased has succumbed to fatal injuries sustained in the said accident. Admittedly, the said final report/charge-sheet has not been challenged by the driver or the owner of offending vehicle. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the final report filed by the investigation officer and other police records, with regard to date, time and place of accident, involvement of the offending goods auto-rickshaw bearing Reg. No.AP-39-UJ-7012 in the said accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle and injuries caused to deceased D. Anjineyulu in the said accident and cause of his death.
17 MVC No.4198/2024
15. Further, the Ex.P.8 Post-mortem report, clearly speaks that, the deceased D. Anjineyulu has died due to intracranial bleed due to head injury sustained in the road traffic accident. There is absolutely no contrary or rebuttal evidence on record to disbelieve the above medical records of the deceased. 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 offending goods auto-rickshaw bearing Reg. No.AP-39-UJ-7012, injuries caused to deceased D. Anjineyulu in the said accident and caused of his death.
16. 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 18 MVC No.4198/2024 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 as in a criminal case are not required."
17. 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."
18. 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 have successfully proved through cogent and corroborative evidence that, the deceased D. Anjineyulu has succumbed to 19 MVC No.4198/2024 the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, occurred on 27-05-2024 at about 5:30 p.m., near Srinivasapuram cross road, Rayachoty Mandal, Annamayya District, Andhra Pradesh, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending goods auto-rickshaw bearing Reg. No.AP-39-UJ- 7012. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in Affirmative.
19. Issue No.2: 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 goods auto-rickshaw bearing Reg. No.AP-39-UJ-7012 and deceased D. Anjineyulu has sustained grievous injuries in the said accident and has succumbed to said injuries. Now the petitioners are required to establish that, they are the legal representatives of the deceased. In this regard, they have produced the ration card and their respective Aadhar cards, ration card and family member certificate, which are marked 20 MVC No.4198/2024 as Ex.P.10 to 15. The said documents clearly goes to show that, the petitioner No.1 is wife and petitioners No.2 to 4 are daughters of deceased D. Anjineyulu. On the other hand, the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased D. Anjineyulu is not specifically denied by the respondent No.2 in the case and even there is no contrary or rebuttal evidence placed on record by the respondent No.2 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 D. Anjineyulu.
20. 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 21 MVC No.4198/2024 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 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."
21. 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 22 MVC No.4198/2024 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.
22. The compensation towards loss of dependency: The oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners clearly established that, they are legal representatives of the deceased D. Anjineyulu and they were depending on him. 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 23 MVC No.4198/2024 order to calculate the loss of dependency, the first step is to determine the age and income of the deceased.
23. Age and income of the deceased: The petitioners have averred that, the age of deceased as on the date of accident was 50 years. To substantiate the same, the petitioners have produced the post-mortem report of deceased D. Anjineyulu, which is marked as Ex.P.8, wherein the age of the deceased is mentioned as 50 years. This clearly goes to show that, as on the date of accident the age of the deceased was about 50 years. The petitioners have stated that, as on the date of accident the deceased was hale and healthy and he was working as agriculturist/plumber and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. To substantiate the same, the petitioners have not produced any document to show that, the deceased D. Anjineyulu was working as agriculturist/plumber and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. In such circumstances, there is no other option before this Court, 24 MVC No.4198/2024 except to consider the notional income as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
24. 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."
25. Admittedly the accident took place in the year 2024. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased as per the guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is to be treated as Rs.16,500/- per month. 25 MVC No.4198/2024 Therefore, the annual income of the deceased in the present case is held as Rs.1,98,000/-.
26. 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 50 years and was not a permanent employee, the future prospects would be 25% of his income, which comes to Rs.49,500/- per annum. Therefore, the future prospects of the deceased is held as Rs.49,500/- per annum. If this income is added to the notional income, then it comes to Rs.2,47,500/- per annum. Further, the annual income of the deceased comes within the exemption limits as per Income Tax Act.
26 MVC No.4198/2024
27. The deduction of personal expenses and calculating the multiplier: The family of the deceased consist of four persons i.e., petitioners No.1 to 4. The total number of the 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.61,875/-. After deducting 1/4th out of total income, towards the personal expenses of deceased, the annual income of the deceased is held as Rs.1,85,625/-.
28. As on the date of death, the age of the deceased was 50 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 13. Accordingly, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency is held as Rs.1,85,625/- x 13 = Rs.24,13,125/-.
27 MVC No.4198/2024
29. Compensation under conventional heads: In the present case, admittedly the petitioner No.1 is wife and petitioners No.2 to 4 are the children of deceased D. Anjineyulu. Hence, the petitioners No.1 to 4 are entitled for compensation under the head of spousal 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/-
30. 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/-, 28 MVC No.4198/2024 the loss of spousal and parental consortium comes to Rs.48,000/- each to petitioners No.1 to 4 and funeral expenses comes to Rs.18,000/-.
31. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for compensation under different heads as follows :
Sl. Head of
Amount/Rs
No. Compensation
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 24,13,125-00
2. Loss of spousal and Rs. 1,92,000-00
parental consortium
3. Loss of estate Rs. 18,000-00
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000-00
Total Rs. 26,41,125-00
Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation of Rs.26,41,125/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petition till its realization.
32. Liability: Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending goods autorickshaw bearing No.AP- 29 MVC No.4198/2024 39-UJ-7012. Further, the insurance policy bearing No.10003/31/24/316411, issued by the respondent No.2, in respect of offending goods autorickshaw bearing No.AP-39- UJ-7012 was valid from 10-11-2023 to 09-11-2024. As such, the said policy was valid as on the date of accident i.e. 27-05- 2024. There is no evidence on record to show that, there is any breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the insured/respondent No.1. Further, the evidence placed on record by the petitioners clearly establishes that, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending goods autorickshaw bearing No.AP-39-UJ-7012, the accident has occurred and the deceased D. Anjineyulu has succumbed to grievous injuries sustained in the said accident. In such circumstances, the respondent No.1 being the owner of offending vehicle is vicariously liable to compensate for the damage caused by the said vehicle. The respondent No.2 being the insurer of the said vehicle has to indemnify the respondent No.1. Therefore, the respondent 30 MVC No.4198/2024 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.2 to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, for the above stated reasons, holding that, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.26,41,125/- from the respondent No.2, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 in Partly Affirmative.
33. Issue No.3: In view of the above findings, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.26,41,125/- (Rupees twenty six lakh forty one thousand one hundred and twenty five only) with 31 MVC No.4198/2024 interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the above compensation amount to the petitioners. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fastened on respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the said amount within two months from the date of this order.
The above compensation amount is apportioned as follows:
Petitioner No.1 - Wife - 40% Petitioner No.2 - Daughter - 20% Petitioner No.3 - Daughter - 20% Petitioner No.4 - Daughter - 20% Out of total compensation amount awarded in favour of petitioner No.1, 40% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in her name as fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for the period 32 MVC No.4198/2024 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 to 4, 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/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced in the open Court this the 1 st day of April, 2026) (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners P.W.1: D. Sravanthi @ Dinnepati Sravanthi W/o Late D. Anjineyulu 33 MVC No.4198/2024 Documents marked on behalf of petitioners Ex.P.1: True copy of F.I.R.
Ex.P.2 & True copy of First Information Statement &
2(a): its translated copy
Ex.P.3: True copy of F.I.R.
Ex.P.4 & True copy of First Information Statement &
4(a): its translated copy
Ex.P.5 & True copy of Sketch & its translated copy
5(a):
Ex.P.6: True copy of M.V.A. Report
Ex.P.7 & True copy of Inquest & its translated copy
7(a):
Ex.P.8: True copy of Post-mortem Report
Ex.P.9: True copy of Charge-sheet
Ex.P.10 to Notarized copy of Aadhar Cards of
13: petitioners No.1 to 4
Ex.P.14: Notarized copy of Ration Card
Ex.P.15: Notarized copy of Family Member
Certificate
Ex.P.16: Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of P.W.2
Ex.P.17: Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of P.W.3
Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents
-Nil-
Documents marked on behalf of respondents
-Nil-
(Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.