Bangalore District Court
Alamelu vs Amir Jan on 4 February, 2026
KABC020081702018
BEFORE THE MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, IV ADDITIONAL JUDGE OF SMALL CAUSE
COURT AND A.C.J.M., AT BENGALURU (SCCH-6)
DATED THIS THE 04th DAY OF FEBRUARY - 2026
Present: Smt.Chetana S.F.,
B.A., LL.B.,
IV ADDL. SCJ & ACJM
MEMBER -MACT, BENGALURU.
M.V.C No.1787/2018
Petitioners:
1. Smt. Alamelu,
W/o Late Venkatesh,
Aged about 40 years,
2. Vetrivelu
S/o Late Venkatesh
Aged about 21 years,
3. Anitha,
D/o Late Venkatesh,
Aged about 20 years,
4. Vinitha,
D/o Late Venkatesh,
Aged about 19 years,
5. Murugamma,
W/o Late Natesh,
M/o Late Venkatesh,
Aged about 65 years,
All are residing at
No.153 Bandepalya,
SCCH-6 2 MVC. No.1787/2018
Opp. Anjaneya Swamy Temple,
Garvebhavipalya, Bangalore560 068.
VERSUS
Opponent:
1) Sri. Amir jan
S/o Abdul Sattar,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at Badalipura Village,
And Post, Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District,
Bengaluru.
(Owner of goods Tempo bearing
Reg. No. KA-05-0795)
2) Sri. Abdul Subaan
S/o Abdul Sattar,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at KKM, Tent House,
Anekal Town, Bengaluru
Rural District, Bengaluru
(Driver of vehicle bearing Reg.
No. KA-05-0795)
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.2, Hosur Main Road,
Madivala, Bengaluru560 068.
Policy No: 071803/31/05/10459.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocate for Petitioner: Sri. B. C. Harisha,
Advocate for respondent No.1- Sri.Vivekananda
Reddy,
Advocate for respondent No.2: Sri.Vivekananda
Reddy,
Advocate for respondent No.3: Exparte.,
SCCH-6 3 MVC. No.1787/2018
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed by the petitioners under Sec.166 of M.V Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of Sri.Venkatesh S/o. Natesh caused in a road traffic accident.
2. The facts leading to the filing of top noted petition are that on 31-08- 2006 at 12-45 p.m. while the deceased Sri. Venkatesh was proceeding as a pillion rider at Hosuru- Bengaluru NH-7 main road, opposite Cool land hotel Chandrapura , Bengaluru, in a motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA-01-EB-4279 along with one Shri. K. Poongan, at that time driver of goods tempo bearing registration No. KA-05-0795 was driving in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased from back side. As result of which the they fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately after the accident he was shifted to Sparsha Multiple Speciality Hospital, Bengaluru for treatment, wherein the doctor declared as died. The accident occurred due to rash and SCCH-6 4 MVC. No.1787/2018 negligent manner of driver of goods tempo bearing No.KA-05- 0795.
3. After service of notice to respondents, the respondent No.2 remained exparte and the respondent no.1 and 3 have appeared through their respective counsels and filed written statements.
4. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 has filed the objection statement wherein contended that the petition filed by the petitioners is Hopelessly barred by law of limitation and as per petitioner averments it was mentioned that accident took place on 31.08.2006 and the present petition is filed in the year 2018 and as such the above petition is filed after the lapse of 12 years from the date of alleged accident. Further it was insured with the respondent No.3/insurance company and the policy was in force as on the date of alleged accident. He has specifically denied that the occurrence alleged accident. He has specifically denied that the alleged complaint was lodged after after lapse of 12 years colluding with the Police created false and concocted story in filing the claim petition. Hence prays to dismiss the petition. SCCH-6 5 MVC. No.1787/2018
5. The respondent No.3 filed written statement wherein contended that there is a violation of Section 134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act. The driver of the Lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-16-TJ-4331 was not holding valid and effective driving licence and was also not having valid RC, FC and Permit to the vehicle. Further it contended that the petition filed by the petitioners is barred by law of limitation and as per police documents and petition the alleged accident taken place on 31.08.2006 and the present petition is filed in the year 2018 i.e., after the lapse of 12 years from the date of alleged accident. The alleged accident was not caused due to the insured vehicle as alleged in the claim petition the deceased was riding his motor cycle with a rash and negligent manner without wearing helmet without following traffic rules caused accident and died. There is no rash and negligent driving on the part of the 407 driver. Hence, Respondent No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation. Hence prays to dismiss the petition.
6. Earlier the respondent No.3 was placed exparte and my predecessor in office have passed the case for judgment SCCH-6 6 MVC. No.1787/2018 awarding the compensation amount to the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No.3 has filed the Miscellaneous petition No.121/2022 which was restored and accordingly, the present petition is once again restored to its original number. After restoration, respondent No.3 appeared through his counsel and filed the written statement. Even Respondent No.1 appeared and filed written statement and respondent No.2 did not file the written statement. Thereafter once again petitioner further examined and got marked Ex.P1 to 21 documents and Pw.1 cross examined by respondent No.1 to 3 counsels and inspite of several opportunity given to the respondents, respondents have not led any evidence and hence case was posted for arguments.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings this tribunal has framed the following issues :
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, Sri. Venkatesh S/o Late Natesh, died due to injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that was taken place on 31.08.2006 at about 12.45 P. M., at Hosur- Bengaluru NH-7 Chandapura, Opp.
Cool Land Hotel, Bengaluru, invovling goods tempo SCCH-6 7 MVC. No.1787/2018 bearing Reg. No. KA-05-795 belonging to first respondent and the said vehicle was driven by second respondent?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that, the accident has mainly occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-05-795?
3. Whether the petitioner prove that, they are the only legal heirs and dependents of deceased?
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for? If so, at what rate from whom?
5. What order or award ?
8. The petitioners to prove the case got examined petitioner No.1 herself as PW1, and got marked exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex. P-21. The respondents have not led any evidence and no documents got marked on behalf of the respondents.
9. The learned counsel for petitioners has relied on the following citations:
1. (1996) 4 SCC 652 between Dhannalal vs. D.P. Vijayvargya and Others
2. (2005) ACC 209 between Phool Chand Singh vs Ram Khelawan & Anr.
3. 2003 AIR SCW 5027 between New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs. C. Padma & Others
4. RLW 2004 (2) Raj 800 between Smt. Hazna & Anr. vs. Prabulal and Others SCCH-6 8 MVC. No.1787/2018
5. (2005) ACC 449 between Nellus Sambasiva Roa vs. Smt. B. Ramaprasadam
6. MA.No.21/2008 between Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Smt. Parvathi Pramanik and Others
7. S.L.P No.8412-8413/2023 between ICICI vs. Ayiti Navaneeth and others
8. Bhagirathi Dash vs. Union of India & Anr W.P (C) No.166/2024
9. W.P. No.20961/2023(MV) between United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Ramu @ Ramesh & Others
10. W.P. No.202613/2024(GMCPC) between M/s Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Anil
11. (2017) 16 SCC 680 between National Insurance Co.
10. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied on the following citation:
1. 2017 ACJ 1255 between Purohit and Company vs. Khatoonbee and another
11. Arguments were addressed on both side.
12. Perused the entire materials placed on record. My answers to the above issues are as follows :-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.4 : In the partly Affirmative
Issue No.5 : As per final order
for the following :
SCCH-6 9 MVC. No.1787/2018
REASONS
13. ISSUE No.1 to 3 : In order to avoid the repetition of facts, all these issues are taken up together for common discussion.
14. In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, petitioner No.1 wife of the deceased examined herself as PW-1 and got marked Ex-P1 to Ex-P21 i.e., FIR, Statements, Charge sheet, PM Report, Adhar card and DL of deceased, Aadhar cards of petitioners, Identity card of Petitioner No.1, Death certificate, Legal heir certificate, Convocation certificate, Provisional certificate, SSLC Marks card, TC, SSLC Marks card, Bsc Nursing certificate, Aadhar card, Election Identity cards, Aadhar cards and Disability certificate.
15. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 denied all the entire averments of the petition by filing detailed objections and contended that the claim petition is hopelessly barred by limitation and the alleged accident has been taken place on 31.08.2006 and the present petition has SCCH-6 10 MVC. No.1787/2018 been filed on 12.12.2018 and after the lapse of 12 years from the date of alleged accident, the present petition has been filed and as such the same is not maintainable. Further disputed the occurrence of accident and involvement of the vehicle and contended that in order to make a lawful gain, after the lapse of 12 years, the petitioners have filed the present petition. Further disputed that the accident has been taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-05-0795.
16. The Respondent No.3 also filed the objections contending that the petition is barred by limitation, since the petition is filed after the lapse of 12 years and disputed the involvement of the accident and the cause and manner of the accident.
17. On perusal of the documents produced by the petitioners, soon after the accident, the complaint has been lodged by the pillion rider of the motorcycle Poongan S/o. Murugeshan who is pillion rider along with rider deceased Venkatesh as per Ex.P2. wherein the said pillion rider who is the material eye witness to the accident has clearly stated SCCH-6 11 MVC. No.1787/2018 that on 31.08.2006 he along with the deceased Venkatesh has gone to the marriage in Victor Excel Motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-01-EB-4279 and was returning to the Bengaluru in the said motorcycle at that time, the deceased Venkatesh was riding the motorcycle and he was a pillion rider and at that time, at about 12.45 p.m. on Hosuru-Bengaluru NH-7 road, near Chandapura in front of Cool land Hotel, one Goods Tempo driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner in the same direction from the back of the motorcycle hit to the motorcycle from hind portion. Due to impact, both rider and pillion rider fell down along with the vehicle and the rider Venkatesh sustained grievous head injury and he also sustained injuries and they were taken to the hospital by the public. Further the said Poongan S/o. Murugan in his statement has clearly stated that after the accident he saw the Tempo vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-05-795 which cause the accident and also enquired the name of the driver of the said vehicle is Abdul Subhan. Thereafter they were taken to the hospital. Thus from Ex.P2, it is clear that soon after the accident the pillion rider has lodged the complaint against SCCH-6 12 MVC. No.1787/2018 driver of the offending vehicle and accordingly based on the said complaint, jurisdictional police has registered the FIR as per Ex.P1 on the same day. Thus from Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, the petitioners have clearly established that the involvement of the vehicle and cause of the accident. Even the investigating officer has filed the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable under Sec. 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC by holding that on 31.08.2006 when the deceased Venkatesh was riding the motorcycle along with Poongan as a pillion rider from Hosuru towards Bengaluru, at that time, driver of the Tata Goods vehicle came in the same direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit to the back portion of the motorcycle and thereby cause the accident.
18. It is pertinent to note here that though respondents have denied the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, but, respondents have not disputed and denied Ex.P4 Charge sheet and all the police documents. Even respondents have not examined the driver of the Tata Goods who is the material eye witness to states the facts and circumstances under which accident has been taken place and disprove the SCCH-6 13 MVC. No.1787/2018 evidence of the PW.1 and police documents. Hence in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the accident has been taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Goods vehicle. The very manner of the accident clearly demonstrate that the accident has been taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry. All these documents clearly shows that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident. Moreover all these documents have not at all been disputed by the respondents.
19. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 cross examined PW.1 with regard to the delay in filing the present petition for which PW.1 clarified that as the owner of the offending vehicle assured them to bear medical expenses and to give amount and requested not to file the petition and hence petitioner has not filed the petition within the time. Further petitioner No.1 stated that as she was having the small children, she could not file petition in time. Further learned counsel for respondents suggested that the accident has been taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the SCCH-6 14 MVC. No.1787/2018 rider of motorcycle i.e., her husband deceased which has been out rightly denied by the PW.1. Except by way of suggestion, respondents counsel has not brought any evidence on record to prove that the accident has been taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased. Even though learned counsel for respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 cross examined PW.1 with regard rash and negligence and suggested that the accident has been taken place due to rash and negligent riding of deceased. But, the said suggestion has been outrightly denied by the PW.1.
20. Learned counsel for respondent seriously and vehemently argued that the accident has bee taken place in the year 2006 but petition has been filed in the year 2018 after 12 years and hence the petition is hopelessly barred by limitation.
21. It is pertinent to note here that prior to the Motor Vehicle amendment Act 2019(effective from April 4 2022), there was no limitation period for filing the Motor vehicle claims Act . Sec.166(3) prescribing the limitation SCCH-6 15 MVC. No.1787/2018 period, the limitation clause was removed by 1984 amendment. Hence before April 1994 till March 31 st 2022 claims can be filed at any time as there was no limitation period for filing the cases. Accidents occurring prior to April 1 2022 were not bound by a specific rigid timeline. Therefore, for accidents occurring before 1.04.2022 the law in force at the time of the accident applies, meaning there was no statutory limitation. The Hon'ble Apex court in catena of decision observed that the court should take lenient view considering the act a piece of beneficial legislation for the victims.
22. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the rulings on limitation in 1996 SCC (4) 652, JT 1996 (5) 601 between Dhannalal vs D.P. Vijayvargiya & Ors, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that It may be pointed out that the said sub-section(3) of Section 166 of the Act has been omitted by Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 which came in force w.e.f 14.11.1994. The effect of the Amending Act is that on 14.11.1994 there is no limitation for filing claims before the Tribunal in respect of any accident. It can be said that Parliament realised the grave injustice and injury which was being caused to the heirs and legal representatives of the victims who died in accidents by rejecting their claim petitions only on ground of limitation. It is a matter of common knowledge that majority of the claimants for such compensation are ignorant about the period during which such claims should be preferred. After the death due to the SCCH-6 16 MVC. No.1787/2018 accident, of the bread earner of the family, in many cases such claimants are virtually on the streets. Even in cases where the victims escapes death some of such victims ae hospitalized for months if not for years.
23. Further relied on New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs. C. Padma & Anr, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme court of India held that Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal arise out of the following circumstances. In a motor accident, which took place on 18.2.1989, the respondents sustained bodily injuries. The claim petition was filed on 2.11.1995, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Claims Tribunal rejected the plea of limitation raised by the appellant herein and awarded compensation of Rs. 45,000/-. The Revision Petition, filed by the appellant, was also dismissed by the High Court on 5.12.1996.
7."In this background, now it has to be examined as to what is the effect of omission of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act. From the amending Act it does not appear that the said sub-section (3) has been deleted retrospectively. But at the same time, there is nothing in the amending Act to show that benefit of deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166 is not to be extended to pending claim petitions where a plea of limitation has been raised. The effect of deletion of sub- section (3) from Section 166 of the Act can be tested by an illustration. Suppose an accident had taken place two years before 14.11.1994 when sub-section (3) was omitted from Section 166.
Firstly, such an Act like Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, if otherwise the claim is found genuine. Secondly, it is a self contained Act which prescribes mode of filing the application, procedure to be followed and award to be made. The Parliament, in its wisdom, realised the grave injustice and injury being caused to the heirs and legal representatives of the victims who suffer bodily injuries/die in accidents, by SCCH-6 17 MVC. No.1787/2018 rejecting their claim petitions at the threshold on the ground of limitation, and purposely deleted sub-section (3) of Section 166, which provided the period of limitation for filing the claim petitions and this being the intendment of the Legislature to give effective relief to the victims and the families of the motor accidents untrammeled by the technicalities of the limitation, invoking of Article 137 of the Limitation Act would defeat the intendment of the Legislature.
24. Further relied on the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Smt. Ratansri & Others wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that The only question to be decided by this court is whether the claim petition was barred by limitation as it was presented after 12 years of the date of accident and as to whether the driver of the vehicle was having valid licence on the date of the accident or not?
The effect of the Amending Act is that w.e.f. 14.11.1994 there is no limitation for filing claims before the Tribunal in respect of any accident. It can be said that Parliament realised the grave injustice and injury which was being caused to the heirs and legal representatives of the victims who died in accidents by rejecting their claim petitions only on ground of limitation. It is a matter of common knowledge that majority of the claimants for such compensation are ignorant about the period during which such claims should be preferred. After the death due to the accident of the bread earner of the family, in many cases such claimants are virtually on the streets. Even in cases where the victims escape death some of such victims are hospitalised for months if not for years. The law laid down in the aforesaid case of Dhannalal (supra), was also followed by the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. C.Padma : Laws(SC)2003-9-113 wherein it has been held that the Motor Vehicle Act being a beneficial Legislation, self contained technicalities of SCCH-6 18 MVC. No.1787/2018 limitation under Article 137 of Limitation Act cannot be invoked to defeat Legislative Intendment.
25. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid cases, I find that the the tribunal did not commit any illegality while deciding the issue no. 5 holding that the claim petition was filed well within the time because the limitation prescribed by the old Act was omitted and when the claim petition was presented in the year 2002, there was no limitation to present the said petition.
26. Thus in view of above said reasons, coming to the facts of the present case, since the accident has been taken place in the year 2006 and the petition has been filed in the year 2018 i.e., prior to the date of amendment 1.04.2022, there is no limitation period for filing the case. Moreover soon after the accident on the same day i.e., 31.08.2006 itself, the pillion rider has lodged the complaint before the police and the concerned police station has registered the FIR and immediately, the injured was shifted to the hospital on the same day. All the documents clearly establishes that an accident taken place on 31.08.2006 and on the same day itself, complaint has lodged and injured was taken to the hospital where he was reported to be died. Under such facts and circumstances, petitioners have clearly established that the accident has been taken place between two wheeler and SCCH-6 19 MVC. No.1787/2018 the lorry and due to the accident, the deceased succumbed due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Even the petitioner clearly stated that as the owner of the vehicle has assured her they will bear all expenses and requested her not to give the complaint, she has not filed the petition. Moreover, the petitioner is an rustic woman clearly stated that as she was having small children, she could not file the case, after the accident. Moreover prior to 01.04.2022, as there was no limitation period for claiming compensation for injury or death arising out of the use of motor vehicle, hence the petition is not barred by limitation. Hence the defence taken by the respondent is not maintainable.
27. Thus, the oral evidence of PW-1 discussed with the above documentary evidence are sufficient for the purpose of the actionable claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. Mere taking of defence is not sufficient to dislodge the testimony of other side, which has no sanctity in the eyes of Law.
28. Under such circumstances the evidence of PW.1 which is supported by police documents has to be accepted. SCCH-6 20 MVC. No.1787/2018 Consequently I hold that the accident is proved to have been caused due to the actionable negligence of the driver of offending vehicle.
29. In addenda, in a claim for compensation u/s 166 of M.V Act, 1988, the claimant has to prove the incident only on preponderance of probabilities and proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'MANGALA RAM VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY reported in (2018) 5 SCC 656. With this observation issue No.1 is answered as 'In the Affirmative'.
30. ISSUES NO.2 to 4 : The petitioner No.1 filed affidavit in lieu of her chief-examination and deposed that she is the wife of deceased Venkatesh. The documents which are exhibited at Ex's.P11 and Ex.P17 to 20- Legal heir certificate and Aadhaar cards reveals that the petitioner No.1 to 5 are the wife, son, daughters and mother of deceased. Be that as it may, since the evidence led by PW.1 is satisfactory and also taking into consideration the fact that there are no rival SCCH-6 21 MVC. No.1787/2018 claimants, I hold that the petitioner is the legal representative of the deceased.
31. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY INCLUDING FUTURE PROSPECTS: In the Ex-P7-Driving Licence, it reveals that date of birth of Sri Venkatesh is 12.12.1974 and accident has been taken place on 31.08.2006 which indicates that he was aged 32 years as on the date of accident. Therefore the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group of 31 to 35 i.e., as per Sarla Verma's case for the said age group is '16'.
32. PW-1 contended that deceased Sri Venkatesh was working as a Manson Tailor and earning Rs.12,000/-p.m. In this regard, PW-1 has not produced any document to prove his income. Therefore, the monthly income is assessed at Rs.8,000/- and the yearly income would be Rs.96,000/-. The petitioners are the dependents as they are the widow and children and mother respectively. In respect of the death cases under the Motor Vehicles Act wherein the deceased is married, in terms of the ruling in Sarla Verama vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2010(2) MACR 927 (SC), SCCH-6 22 MVC. No.1787/2018 the proper multiplier to be is applied i.e., the age of the deceased is said to be 32 years.
33. In a decision reported in 2018 ACJ 5 (Hem raj V/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd & others), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that addition on account of future prospects is admissible where minimum income is determined on guesswork in the absence of proof of income. As per Sarala Verma's case, the deceased was married and having five dependents. Hence 1/4th of his income needs to be deducted towards personal & living expenses of the deceased will be 96,000/4=24,000. 96,000-24,000=72,000/- to which the multiplier 16 would be applied would be=11,52,000/- which is towards loss of dependency.
34. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM: In view of the ratio laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2021) 11 SCC 780 between United India Insurance Company Limited V/s. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others, claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- each on account of filial consortium and loss of love & affection.
SCCH-6 23 MVC. No.1787/2018
35. LOSS OF ESTATE: Petitioners are entitled for Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate.
36. FUNERAL EXPENSES: Petitioners are entitled for Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses.
37. The calculation table stands as follows :
1 Loss of Dependency : Rs.11,52,000/-
2 Loss of Consortium : Rs.2,50,000/-
3 Loss of Estate : Rs.50,000/-
4 Funeral Expenses : Rs.25,000/-
Total Rs.14,77,000/-
Hence, petitioners are entitle for compensation of Rs.14,77,000=00.
38. REGARDING INTEREST & LIABILITY: Having regard to the nature of the claim and current bank rate of interest, this Tribunal is of the view that if interest at the rate of 6% p.a, is awarded it would meet the ends of justice.
39. Therefore, the respondent No.1 being the RC owner and respondent No.2 is insurer is liable to pay the aforesaid award amount to the petitioners together with interest @ 6% SCCH-6 24 MVC. No.1787/2018 p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization of the entire amount. However the respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle is primarily liable to satisfy the award amount together with interest within one month from the date of this order. Accordingly issue No.2 and 3 are answered as 'In the Affirmative' and issue No.4 is answered as 'Party in the affirmative'.
40. ISSUE NO.5 : In view of the findings given on issues No.1 to 4 and for the reasons discussed therein, I proceed to pass the following;
-: ORDER :-
The petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle's Act 1988, is hereby partly allowed.
The petitioner is entitled for the compensation of Rs.14,77,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its re+9alization.
The respondent No.1 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent No.3 shall deposit the compensation amount in within a period of thirty days from the date of award.SCCH-6 25 MVC. No.1787/2018
On deposit of the compensation amount the first petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.3,77,000/-, petitioner No.2 to 4 each are entitled for sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and the petitioner No.5 is entitled for sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.
The petitioner No.1 to 4 are entitled for the release of 50% of the compensation amount and remaining 50% of the compensation amount awarded in fixed deposit at a nationalized bank of their choice for a period of 5 years.
The entire amount of Rs.2,00,000/- released in favor of petitioner No.5.
Petitioners are entitled to enjoy the periodical interest of their respective fixed deposit.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 04th day of February 2026).
(Chetana S.F.) IV ASCJ & ACJM Court of Small causes, Bengaluru SCCH-6 26 MVC. No.1787/2018 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/S :
PW1 : Alamelu LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/S :
Ex.P1 : C/c FIR and complaint
Ex.P2 & 3 : C/c Police Statements
Ex.P4 : C/c Charge Sheet
Ex.P5 : C/c Postmortem Report
Ex.P6 & 7 : Voter Identity card and Driving License
of deceased
Ex.P8 : Notarized copies of Aadhar cards of
petitioners
Ex.P9 : Notarized copy of Aadhar card of
petitioner No.1
Ex.P10 : Death certificate
Ex.P11 : Legal Heir Certificate
Ex.P12 : Convocation, Provisional certificates and
SSLC Marks card of son of deceased
Ex.P13 : TC, BEd SSLC Marks card and Bsc
Nursing certificates of daughter of
deceased
Ex.P14 : Notarized copy of Aadhar card of
deceased Venkatesh
Ex.P15 & 16 : Election Identity cards of son and
daughter of deceased
Ex.P17 to 20 : Notarized copies of Aadhar cards
Ex.P21 : Notarized copy of disability certificate
SCCH-6 27 MVC. No.1787/2018
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/S :
---NIL--
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/S :
---NIL--
(Chetana S.F.) IV Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACJM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.