Bangalore District Court
Kiran Devi vs Parvatthamma on 6 November, 2025
SCCH-14 1 MVC.815/2022
KABC020043692022
BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH-14
Dated : This the 6th day of November, 2025
Present : Smt. N.Anupama,
B.A.L, LL.B.,
MEMBER, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.815/2022
Petitioners: 1.Mrs.Kiran Devi
W/o Late Bijay Kumar Singh,
Aged about 57 years.
2.Mr.Ravi Kumar Singh,
Late Bijay Kumar Singh,
Aged about 32 years.
Both are residing at Kiran Devi,
Kiran Nilaya, House No.202,
Narainpura alias Priprabera,
Near Maheshwara Temple,
SCCH-14 2 MVC.815/2022
Kusum Vihar, Koyla Nagar,
Dhanbad,
Jharkhanda - 826 005.
(By Sri.Sathishchandra.K.V,Adv)
Vs.
Respondents : 1.Mrs. Parvathamma,
W/o Krishaiah,
Aged about 57 years,
R/o No.19, 13 Section,
14th Cross, Viratanagar,
Bommanahalli,
Bengaluru - 560 068.
(By Sri.Naveen.N.M, Adv)
2.Mr.Venugopal.K
S/o Krishaiah
Aged about 27 years,
R/o No.19, 13 Section,
14th Cross, Viratanagar,
Bommanahalli,
Bengaluru - 560 068.
(By Sri.Naveen.N.M, Adv)
3. United India Insurance
Company Limited,
R/o No.19/12, 1st floor,
Deepa Complex,
20 Feet Ring Road,
Paparedypalya,
Nagarbhavi 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru - 560 072.
(By Sri.B.R.Venkatesh Kamath,Adv)
SCCH-14 3 MVC.815/2022
:JUDGMENT:
This is a Petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/- for the death of Roushan Kumar Singh S/o Late Bijay Kumar Singh in the Road Traffic Accident.
2. The petition-averments are as under:
As per the petition, petitioner no.1 is the Mother and petitioner no.2 is the Brother of Roushan Kumar Singh. That on 21.01.2019 at about 10.00 a.m., on Infosys Road, near Oterra Hotel, Electronics City, Bangalore, while Roushan Kumar Singh (deceased) was proceeding to his office in the Scooter bearing no.KA-05-JU-5898, a Tata Sumo bearing no.KA-55-4094 coming from the opposite-direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner from dashed against his scooter. As a result, Roushan Singh fell-down and sustained grievous-injuries to his head and back. He was immediately shifted to Sparsh Hospital and then to Aster CMI Hospital, but he succumbed to injuries on 10.02.2019.SCCH-14 4 MVC.815/2022
3. That prior to the accident, Roushan Kumar Singh was hale and healthy. He was working as a Software Engineer at Infosys Company and was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month.
4. That the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Sumo. Hence Respondent no.1-Owner, Respondent no.2-Driver and Respondent no.3-Insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Hence this petition.
5. In pursuance of the notice, Respondent no.1 to 3 appeared through their respective counsels. However, only respondent no.3- Insurance Company has filed the Objection statement.
6. In the Objection Statement, Respondent no.3-Insurance Company has denied the petition-averments in toto. However, it has stated that the Insurance in respect of Tata Sumo bearing no.KA-55- 4094 is subject to terms, conditions and limitations subsisting as on the date of accident. It is contended that the insured Tata Sumo bearing no.KA-55-4094 was not involved in the alleged accident, and it is clear from the Police records. It is stated that the alleged SCCH-14 5 MVC.815/2022 accident has taken-place on 21.01.2019 whereas, the complaint has been lodged on 04.02.2019 i.e., 15 days after the date of occurrence of the alleged accident. Moreso, nothing prevented the petitioners or the Hospital Authorities to inform the concerned jurisdictional Police immediately after the injured-Roushan Kumar was admitted to the Hospital for treatment. These facts show the collusion between the petitioners and the Owner of TATA Sumo bearing no.KA-55-4094, and hence respondent no.3 is not liable to pay any compensation.
7. Further, that the owner of the insured Tata Sumo has not intimated the alleged accident to respondent no.3 and there is violation of Section 134(c) and 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act. That the Tata Sumo had no valid Permit, RC and FC. Thus, respondent no.3 has prayed to dismiss the petition against it.
8. On the rival pleadings, the following Issues have been framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that Roushan Kumar Singh S/o Late Bijay Kumar Singh was died in the Road Traffic Accident which SCCH-14 6 MVC.815/2022 occurred on 21.01.2019 at about 10.10 a.m., at Electronic City Infosys road near the Oterra Hotel, Bengaluru due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo bearing Regn.No.KA-55-4094 by its driver?
2. Whether the Petitioners prove that they are the legal-heirs of Roushan Kumar Singh?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for? If yes, what is the quantum and who is liable to pay?
4. What Order or Award?
9. On behalf of petitioners, petitioner no.2 has got himself examined as P.W.1 and has got marked Exs.P.1 to 23; two eye- witnesses (Senior Manager, Infosys and Complainant) have been examined as PWs.2 and PW.3 and Exs.P.24 to 37 have been marked. On the other hand, Respondent no.3 has got 3 witnesses examined as RWs.1 to 3 (MRO of Sparsh Hospital, I.O. and Official of Insurance Company respectively) and Ex.R.1 to 8 have been marked.
10. Perused the materials on record. Heard both-sides.
11. My answer to the Issues are as under :
SCCH-14 7 MVC.815/2022
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Negative
Issue No.3 : In the Negative
Issue No.4 : As per the Final Order,
[
for the following :
REASONS
12. Issue No.1 to 3: Since these issues are inter-linked, they are taken up together for discussion.
As per the petition, one Roushan Kumar Singh who is the son of petitioner no.1 and brother of petitioner no.2 has died in the Road Traffic Accident caused by the driver of the offending Tata Sumo bearing no.KA-55-4094. On the other hand, Respondent no.3 has stated that the Insurance in respect of Tata Sumo bearing no.KA-55- 4094 is subject to terms, conditions and limitations subsisting as on the date of accident. It is contended that the insured Tata Sumo bearing no.KA-55-4094 was not involved in the alleged accident, and it is clear from the Police records. It is stated that the alleged accident has taken-place 21.01.2019 whereas, the complaint has been lodged on 04.02.2019 i.e., 15 days after the date of occurrence of the alleged accident. Moreso, nothing prevented the petitioners or the Hospital Authorities to inform the concerned jurisdictional Police SCCH-14 8 MVC.815/2022 immediately after the injured-Roushan Kumar was admitted to the Hospital for treatment. These facts show the collusion between the petitioners and the Owner of TATA Sumo bearing no. no.KA-55- 4094, and hence respondent no.3 is not liable to pay any compensation.
13. On behalf of petitioners, petitioner no.2 has got himself examined as P.W.1 and has got marked Exs.P.1 to 23; two eye- witnesses (Senior Manager, Infosys and Complainant respectively) have been examined as PWs.2 and PW.3 and Exs.P.24 to 32 have been marked. On the other hand, Respondent no.3 has got 3 witnesses examined as RWs.1 to 3 (MRO of Sparsh Hospital, I.O. and Official of Insurance Company respectively) and Ex.R.1 to 8 have been marked.
14. Exs.P.1 to 5 are the certified-copy of FIR, Complaint, Spot Mahazar, Spot sketch and charge sheet. The FIR & Complaint at Exs.P.1 & 2 show that the case has been registered by Electronic City Traffic Police against the driver of the offending TATA Sumo bearing no.KA-55-4094 for the offences punishable under Section SCCH-14 9 MVC.815/2022 279, 337 of IPC and Section 134(A&B) r/w 187 of MV Act. Ex.P.5 is the Charge-sheet filed against the driver of the Tata Sumo for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304A of IPC and Section 134(A&B) r/w 187 of MV Act. Ex.P.6 is the Death Intimation given by Aster Hospital to Police. Ex.P.7 is the Original Degree certificate, Ex.P.8 is the letter, Ex.P.9 - Salary slips of deceased (3 in number), Ex.P.10 is the Form No.16, Ex.P.11 is the Bank account statement of the deceased, Ex.P.12 is the Discharge Summary, Ex.P.13 is Medical bills, Ex.P.14 is Interim bill, Ex.P.15 is original Aadhar card of deceased, Ex.P.16 is original B.Tech degree certificate, Ex.P.17 is SSLC marks card, Ex.P.18 is Senior Secondary school certificate of examination marks card. Ex.P.19 is original B.Tech marks cards(4 in nos.), Ex.P.20 is Inquest report, Ex.P.21 is PM report and Exs.P.22 & 23 are Aadhar cards of petitioners.
15. PW.1 has reiterated the petition-averments in the affidavit filed in lieu of his examination-in-chief. A perusal of FIR & Complaint at Exs.P.1 & 2 shows that, Electronic City Traffic Police have registered the case against the driver of the offending Tata SCCH-14 10 MVC.815/2022 Sumo bearing no.KA-55-4094 for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337 of IPC and under Section 134(A&B) r/w 187 of MV Act, on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Swamy on 04.02.2019. The complaint at Ex.P.2 has been lodged 15 days after the alleged accident on 21.01.2019.
16. Ex.P.3 is the Spot Mahazar drawn by the concerned Police, which describes the alleged accident spot to be 'Infosys Road, Near Ottera Hotel'. Ex.P.4 is the Spot Sketch which shows that the accident has taken place on the left-side of the road. Ex.P.5 is the true copy of Charge sheet filed against one Venugopal.K - the Driver of Tata Sumo bearing no.KA-55-4094 for the offences punishable under Section 279 & 304-A of IPC and under Section 134(A&B) r/w 187 of MV Act. Ex.P.6 is the Intimation of Death given by Aster Hospital to Police on 10.02.2019.
17. It is the specific contention of respondent no.2 that the offending-vehicle is not at all involved in the alleged accident and that there is a collusion between the petitioners and the Owner of SCCH-14 11 MVC.815/2022 TATA Sumo bearing no. no.KA-55-4094,. I shall now discuss the crucial oral & documentary evidence on record.
18. The averments of the Complaint at Ex.P.2 are as under:
ನಾನು ಈ ಮೆೇಲ್ಕಂಡ ವಿಳಾಸದಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಸ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು ಎಲ್ಸಿಟಾ ದಲ್ಲಿ ಪಾರ್ಕಿಂಗ್ ಕಲೆಕ್ಷನ್ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ದಿಃ21.01.2019 ರಂದು ಬೆಳಗ್ಗೆ ಸುಮಾರು 10.10 ಗಂಟೆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಹೊಟೆರಾ ಹೋಟೆಲ್ ಹತ್ತಿರ ಇರುವ ಪಾರ್ಕಿಂಗ್ ಸ ್ಧಳದಲ್ಲಿ ಕಲೆಕ್ಷನ್ ಮಾಡುವ ಕಾರ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿರುವಾಗ, ಇನ್ಪ ೋಸಿಸ್ ಕಂಪನಿ ರಸ್ತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಎಲ್ಸಿಟಾ ಕಛೇರಿ ಕಡೆಯಿಂದ ಬರುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಒಂದು ಟಾಟಾ ಸುಮೋ ನಂ.KA-55-4094 ರ ಚಾಲಕ ವಾಹನವನ್ನು ಅಜಾಗರೂಕತೆಯಿಂದ ಚಾಲನೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ರಸ್ತೆಯ ಬಲ ಬಾಗಕ್ಕೆ ಹೋಗಿ ಎದುರುಗಡೆಯಿಂದ ಬರುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಸ್ಕೂ ಟರ್ ನಂ.ಕೆಎ-05-ಜೆಯು-5898 ಗೆ ತಗುಲಿಸಿದನು. ಇದರಿಂದಾಗಿ ಸ್ಕೂ ಟರ್ ಸವಾರ ಕೆಳಗೆ ಬಿದ್ದು ಗಾಯಗಳಾದವು. ಅಲ್ಲಿಯೆ ೕ ಇದ್ದ ವಿಜೆಲೆನ್ಸ್ ರವರು ಗಾಯಾಳುವನ್ನು ಚಿಕಿತ್ಸೆ ಗಾಗಿ ಅಂಬ್ಯೂ ಲೆನ್ಸ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಚಿಕಿತ್ಸೆ ಗಾಗಿ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋದರು. ಅದೇ ದಿನ ಮಧ್ಯಾ ಹ್ನ ಗಾಯಾಳುವನ್ನು ಸ್ನೇಹಿತರು ಬಂದು ವಾಹನವನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋದರು. ಅಪಘಾತ ಮಾಡಿದ ಟಾಟಾ ಸುಮೋ ಚಾಲಕ ಮುಂದೆ ಹೋಗಿ ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಸಮಯ ವಾಹನವನ್ನು ನಿಲ್ಲಿಸಿ ಗಾಯಾಳುವನ್ನು ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಗೆ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋದ ನಂತರ ಹೊರಟು ಹೋದನು. ಅದೇ ದಿನ ಗಾಯಾಳುವನ್ನು ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಗೆ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿದ್ದು , ವಿಜಿಲೆನ್ಸ್ ರವರನ್ನು ಗಾಯಾಳುವಿನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ವಿಚಾರಿಸಿದಾಗ ಅವರ ಹೆಸರು ಶ್ರೀ.ರೋಷನ್ ಸಿಂಗ್ , 29 ವರ್ಷ ರವರನ್ನು ಚಿಕಿತ್ಸೆ ಗಾಗಿ ಸ್ಪರ್ಶ್ ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಗೆ ದಾಖಲು ಮಾಡಿರುವುದಾಗಿ ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು. ಗಾಯಾಳುವಿಗೆ ಸೊಂಟ, ಬೆನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ತಲೆಗೆ ಗಾಯಗಳಾಗಿರುವುದಾಗಿ ತಿಳಿದು ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ನನ್ನನ್ನು ಹೊರತುಪಡಿಸಿದರೇ ಆ ದಿನ ಈ ಸ ್ಧಳದಲ್ಲಿ ಬೇರೆ ಯಾರೂ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ಈ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಇದುವರೆಗೂ ಯಾರಿಗೂ ಹೇಳಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಈ ದಿನ ಎಲೆಕ್ಟಾ ನಿಕ್ ಸಿಟಿ ಸಂಚಾರ ಪೊಲೀಸರು ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಕಡೆಯಿಂದ ವಿಚಾರಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ನನ್ನ ಬಳಿ ಬಂದು ವಿಚಾರಿಸಿದಾಗ ನಾನು ಈ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯನ್ನು SCCH-14 12 MVC.815/2022 ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.
Thus as per the averments of the complaint at Ex.P.2 :
i) the accident is alleged to have occurred on 21.01.2019 whereas the complaint has been lodged on 04.02.2019 i.e., with delay of 15 days;
ii) that the complainant-Swamy is stated to be a Ticket Collector at the Parking Lot near Ottera Hotel and has seen the accident;
iii) according to complainant, on 21.01.2019 at about 10.00 a.m., on Infosys Road, near Oterra Hotel, Electronics City, Bangalore, the driver of TATA Sumo bearing no.KA-55-4094 drove the same in a rash & negligent manner, went to the right-side of the road and dashed against the Scooter bearing no.KA-05-JH-5893 coming from the opposite-direction; and as a result, the rider of the Scooter (Roushan Singh) sustained injuries;
iv) that the injured Roushan Singh was taken to Hospital in an Ambulance by the Vigilance officials of Infosys;
v) that after the accident, the driver of the TATA Sumo stopped SCCH-14 13 MVC.815/2022 the vehicle at a distance, stood for sometime and went away after the injured was taken to the hospital;
vi) that later in the day, the friends of the injured came and took away the Scooter from the spot;
vii) that later, on enquiring the vigilance officials, the complainant came to know that the injured was Roushan Singh and he has been admitted to Sparsh Hospital;
viii) that except the complainant there was no one else at the spot.
19. With this background, I shall discuss the evidence of complainant-Swamy who has been examined as PW.3. He has reiterated the complaint-averments in the affidavit filed in lieu of his examination-in-chief. In his cross-examination, PW.3 has deposed that he was working as a Ticket Collector at Park Zebra Company; that he has given the complaint 17 to 18 days after the accident thinking that the Infosys Company itself would deal with the matter since the accident victim was an Employee of Infosys. SCCH-14 14 MVC.815/2022
20. The complaint-averments & the evidence of PW.3 are doubtful due to the following:
i) delay of about 14-15 days in lodging the complaint;
ii) the statement of PW.3 that he was working as a Ticket Collector near the accident spot, which means he is no longer working there;
iii) it is highly improbable that the injured Roushan Singh was taken to Hospital in an Ambulance by the Vigilance officials of Infosys, and no Police Intimation has been sent; if it was indeed an RTA, and Police intimation was sent and MLC was registered by Sparsh Hospital on 21.01.2019 itself, as per Exs.R.2 & 3 (marked through RW.1 - M.R.O), what action has the Police taken?? RW.2 - I.O. has deposed that most part of the investigation had already been completed by the time he took-over the investigation of the case and that he has filed the charge sheet. In this regard, the relevant-portion of cross-examination of I.O. - RW.2 is as under:
2. ಅಪಘಾತವು ದಿಃ21.01.2019 ರಂದು ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ದೂರನ್ನು ದಿಃ04.02.2019 ರಂದು ನೀಡಲಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಕಡತದಲ್ಲಿ ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆ ಯಿಂದ ಇಂಟಿಮೆ ೕಷನ್ SCCH-14 15 MVC.815/2022 ಬಂದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ದಾಖಲೆ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಮೋಟಾರ್ ವಾಹನ ಕಾಯಿದೆಯ ಕಲಂ 133 ರ ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನೋಟಿಸ್ ಅನ್ನು ದಿಃ05.02.2019 ರಂದು ನೀಡಲಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ.
21. Thus according to RW.2-I.O, no police intimation is found in their file/records. If that is so, the Police Intimation & MLC Extract at Exs.R.2 & 3(produced by RW.1) must have come into existence after the filing of complaint. Here, if we refer to Ex.R.2- Police Intimation, it is noticed that date & time of receipt of information by Police has not been mentioned. Further, in the Police intimation at Ex.R.2, the place of accident is shown as 'Main Infosys', whereas as per the complaint at Ex.P.2 and the Spot Mahazar & Sketch at Ex.P.3 & 4, the place of accident is 'Infosys Road, Near Ottera Hotel'. Hence there is discrepancy with regard to the place of alleged accident also.
iv) it cannot also be believed that after the accident, the driver of the TATA Sumo stopped the vehicle at a distance, stood for sometime and went away after the injured was taken to the hospital; how is is possible that nobody stopped or questioned him that too at about 10.30 in the morning ;
SCCH-14 16 MVC.815/2022
v) it is relevant to note that, after having said all this in his complaint, the complainant has stated that except him there was no one else at the spot; if that is so, how to believe the contents of the complaint at Ex.P.2 ??? that too in the absence of IMV Report, Notice under Section 133 of M.V.Act and its Reply;
vi) there is neither any IMV Report nor Notice under Section 133 of M.V.Act and its Reply on record; further, except in the complaint at Ex.P.2, there is no mention regarding the alleged Scooter in any of the Police documents.
vii) the relevant-portion of cross-examination of complainant- PW.3 is as under:
2.ಅಪಘಾತವಾದ ನಂತರ ನಾನು ದೂರು ನೀಡುವ ಮೊದಲು ಪೊಲೀಸರು ಘಟನಾ ಸ ್ಥಳಕ್ಕೆ ಬಂದಿದ್ದರೋ ಇಲ್ಲವೋ ನಾನು ನೋಡಿಲ್ಲ. ಪೊಲೀಸರು ಸ ್ಥಳಕ್ಕೆ ಬಂದು ದೂರು ನೀಡಿ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ ನಂತರ ನಾನು ದೂರು ನೀಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ನಿಜ. ಅಪಘಾತಕ್ಕ ೀಡಾದ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿ ನನಗೆ ಪರಿಚಯ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಅಪಘಾತವಾದ ನಂತರ ಗಾಯಾಳು ಎಲ್ಲಿ ಮತ್ತು ಏನೂ ಚಿಕಿತ್ಸೆ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ ಎಂದು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ಪೊಲೀಸರು ಇಂತಹ ವಾಹನದಿಂದ ಅಪಘಾತವಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ದೂರು ನೀಡಿ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದರ ಮೆ ೕರೆಗೆ ನಾನು ದೂರು ನೀಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ನಿಜ. ಅಪಘಾತಕ್ಕ ೀಡಾದ ವಾಹನ ಕಪ್ಪು ಬಣ ್ಣದ ಸ್ಕೂ ಟರ್ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ.
ದೂರು ನೀಡುವುದಕ್ಕಿ ಂತ ಮೊದಲು ನನಗೆ ಟಾಟಾ ಸುಮೋ ನೊಂದಣಿ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ ನೆನಪಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ನಿಜ. ಅಪಘಾತದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನನಗೆ ಏನೂ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲದೇ ಇದ್ದರೂ ಸಹ ಪೊಲೀಸರ SCCH-14 17 MVC.815/2022 ಜೊತೆ ಶಾಮೀಲಾಗಿ ಸುಳ್ಳು ದೂರು ನೀಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಅರ್ಜಿದಾರರಿಗೆ ಅನುಕೂಲವಾಗಲೆಂದು ಸುಳ್ಳು ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿ ಸುಳ್ಳು ಸಾಕ್ಷ್ಯ ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
22. This shows that the complainant neither knew the vehicle numbers nor had he filed the complaint (if at all he had seen) unless he was asked-to by the Police. Also, as already discussed above, now the complainant is not working in the Parking Lot from where he is alleged to have seen the accident. All these aspects render the complaint at Ex.P.2 and the evidence of PW.3, doubtful; in turn it renders the alleged accident and involvement of the offending TATA Sumo, doubtful.
23. Next, it would be apt to refer to the evidence of PW.1 who is the brother of complainant and petitioner no.2. PW.1 has deposed that:
On 21.01.2019 at about 10.10 a.m., my brother- deceased Roushan Kumar Singh was proceeding to his office in his Scooty bearing No.KA05-JU-5898 towards Infosys Office. My brother deceased Roushan Kumar Singh was riding the vehicle slowly on the SCCH-14 18 MVC.815/2022 left side of the road, by observing all traffic formalities, while he was so proceeding at Electronic City Infosys road near the Oterra Hotel, one Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA55-4094 belongs to the First Respondent and the same was driven by the Second Respondent in a rash and negligent manner with dangerously high speed from opposite side of the deceased's vehicle and dashed against my brother Roushan Kumar Singh. Consequent to the terrific impact, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries on his head and backside of his body and others injuries and soon after, my brother - deceased Roushan Kumar Singh was admitted to Saparsh Hospital, Electronic City, Hosur Road and wherein he got a several treatment, medical operations and was examined by many doctors, and the Sparsh Hospital issued an interim bill for a sum of Rs.7,14,952 (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Two only) and subsequently, he was shifted to Aster CMI Hospital, Hebbal for further treatment, and he again took treatment in the aforesaid hospital and we have paid a huge amount towards his medical treatment. Later, my brother deceased Roushan Kumar Singh was succumbed to injuries on 10.02.2019 at 12.15 p.m. SCCH-14 19 MVC.815/2022 Admittedly, PW.1 is not an eye-witness to the accident, and has deposed regarding the alleged accident only on the basis of the complaint at Ex.P.2. PW.1 has deposed as under in his cross-
examination:
I have not seen the accident personally. But I have seen the CCTV footages. Police have themselves registered the case. I was informed about the accident by the officials of the Infosys company whether my brother was working. I was informed on the same day immediately after the accident. I was in Jharkhand at the time of incident. On the same day I came to Bengaluru. I saw my brother in Sparsh hospital. He was not in a condition to speak on that day. I spoke to him on the next day.
2. I was informed by the police that the offending Tata sumo has caused the accident. There was no difficulty to lodge the complaint but I was in the hospital with my brother and I had to go to my native as mother was alone.
Thus although PW.1 has come to Bangalore on the same day, he has not made any efforts to file the complaint, but why?? Ultimately, it is not him who has given the complaint, but one SCCH-14 20 MVC.815/2022 Swamy G.S. - complainant, that too, after 15 days. If there had been an accident indeed, either the Vigilance Officials (who are alleged to have shifted injured Roushan Singh to Sparsh Hospital)of Infosys, or the friends of deceased Roushan Singh, or the brother of deceased, or Sparsh Hospital [if there had been the MLC and Police Intimation by Sparsh Hospital as per Exs.R.2 & 3 (marked through RW.1 - M.R.O)], could have filed the complaint, that too when Roushan Singh was being treated there??? Thus the delay not only shows that the filing of complaint is an 'afterthought', but also the collusion between the Petitioners and Respondent no.1 & 2 (Owner & alleged driver), who have cleverly remained exparte before the court.
24. Next, the petitioner has been treated at Sparsh Hospital and at Aster CMI Hospital. As per the Discharge Summary of Sparsh Hospital at Ex.P.12, the History is stated as : "Patient was seen lying on road-side and was brought to Sparsh Casualty by the by-standers". As per Ex.P.12, Roushan Singh has been treated as an inpatient at Sparsh Hospital from 21.01.2019 to 31.01.2019. SCCH-14 21 MVC.815/2022 Then, Roushan Singh has been taken to Aster Hospital and has been treated as an inpatient from 31.01.2019 to till his death on 10.02.2019. After the death of Roushan Singh, Aster Hospital has given the Death Intimation to Police as per Ex.P.6. Further, as per the Case sheet of Sparsh Hospital at Ex.P.5 (page 5), the 'History' of injury is : "while driving 2-wheeler, met with an unwitnessed accident at 10.30 a.m., on 21.01.2019, near Crown Plaza, E-City"; that the Security-Guard of Infosys has given the information regarding the history of injury; whereas, on page 8 - Admission Consent Agreement, two of the alleged friends of injured Roushan Singh namely, Anand Mohan and Vivek have signed. What prevented them from lodging the complaint???
25. Last but not the least, the present petition for compensation has been filed by the petitioners in the year 2022 i.e., 4 years after the death of Roushan Singh.
26. In this way, there are discrepancies in the Police documents as well as in the evidence on record. MLC and Police Intimation were the vital documents to prove the accident as well as SCCH-14 22 MVC.815/2022 the involvement of vehicles, moreso when all the Police documents have come into existence after the filing of complaint with delay of about 14-15 days. But as discussed above, the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint coupled with the alleged Police Intimation & MLC Extract at Exs.R.2 (also marked as Ex.R.6) & Ex.R.3 which are doubtful, the case of petitioners is improbable and cannot be believed.
In view of the discussion made supra, when the alleged accident and involvement of offending-vehicle itself is not proved, the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation. However, the relationship of petitioners with the deceased is not disputed. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in the "Affirmative", Issue No. 2 & 3 in the "Negative".
27. Issue No.4 : From the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of M.V. Act is dismissed.SCCH-14 23 MVC.815/2022
Draw Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed and computerized by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 6th day of November, 2025) (N.ANUPAMA) MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.
Annexure Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioners :
P.W.1 : Ravi Kumar Singh P.W.2 : Vijay SP P.W.3 : Swamy Documents marked as Exhibits for the Petitioners :
Ex.P1 Certified copy of FIR
Ex.P2 Certified copy of Complaint
Ex.P3 Certified copy of Spot mahazar
Ex.P4 Certified copy of Spot sketch
Ex.P5 Certified copy of charge sheet
Ex.P6 Certified copy of police intimation memo
Ex.P7 Original Provisional certificate of B.Tech
Ex.P8 Letter of increment a/w annexure a/w certificate
under Sec.65B
Ex.P9 Salary slips(3 in nos.)
SCCH-14 24 MVC.815/2022
Ex.P10 Form No.16
Ex.P11 Bank account statement of the deceased
Ex.P12 Discharge summary
Ex.P13 Medical bills (4 in Nos.)
Ex.P14 Interim bill
Ex.P15 Original Aadhar card of deceased
Ex.P16 B.Tech degree certificate
Ex.P17 Secondary school examination marks card
Ex.P18 Senior secondary school certificate of examination
marks card
Ex.P19 B.Tech marks cards (4 in Nos.)
Ex.P20 True copy of Inquest report
Ex.P21 True copy of PM Report
Ex.P.22 & Copy of aadhar card of petitioners
23
Ex.P.24 Letter of authorisation
Ex.P.25 Computer generation revised pay of Roushan along
with annexure-1
Ex.P.26 Computer generated Salary slip for the month of
September 2018
Ex.P.27 Computer generated Salary slip for the month of
October 2018
Ex.P.28 Computer generated Salary slip for the month of
November 2018
Ex.P.29 Computer generation Salary slip for the month of
December 2018
Ex.P.30 Computer generated Salary slip for the month of
January 2019
Ex.P.31 Computer generated Salary slip for the month of
February 2019
SCCH-14 25 MVC.815/2022
Ex.P.32 Certificate u/s.65B Indian Evidence Act
Ex.P.33 Letter of Authorisation
Ex.P.34 Attendance register of Mr.Roshan Kumar Singh (6
pages)
Ex.P.35 Form No.16 of deceased of the assessment year
2019-2020
Ex.P.36 Accident policy settlement detail
Ex.P.37 Offer letter of deceased
Witness examined on behalf of the Respondents :
RW.1 : Kotresh.M RW.2 : Ramachandra.B RW.3 : P.Ramesh
Documents marked as Exhibits for the Respondents :
Ex.R.1 Authorisation letter
Ex.R.2 Copy of police intimation
Ex.R.3 Copy of MLC register extract
Ex.R.4 Interim bill (13 pages)
Ex.R.5 Case sheet
Ex.R.6 MLC intimation cum MLC register extract
Ex.R.7 Authorisation letter
Ex.R.8 Copy of policy
(N.ANUPAMA)
MEMBER, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
Digitally signed
by ANUPAMA
ANUPAMA N
N Date:
2025.11.06
16:14:07 +0530