Bangalore District Court
Puttamma vs Basavaraju H.N on 18 November, 2025
SCCH-2 M.V.C.No.3529/2022
KABC020196172022
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE AND MACT, BENGALURU. (SCCH-2).
M.V.C. 3529/2022
:: PRESENT ::
Sri. H.P. Mohan Kumar, B.Sc., LL.B.
VIth ASCJ & ACJM, MACT,
Bengaluru.
Dated on this 18th day of November, 2025
Petitioners 1. Smt. Puttamma
W/o late Murthy,
Aged about 32 years.
2. Kumari Sakthi Sri
D/o late Murthy,
Aged about 03 years.
3. Smt. Huchamma
W/o late Chikka Siddaiah,
Aged about 59 years.
Since 2nd petitioner is minor
represented by her mother and
natural guardian Puttamma.
SCCH-2 2 M.V.C.3529/2022
All are R/at:
Ambedkar street, Hannur,
Kollegala taluk,
Chamarajanagar 571439.
(By Sri. K Venkata, Advocate)
-VERSUS-
Respondents 1. Sri Basavaraju H N
S/o Shivappa,
Mugur village, T N Pura taluk,
Mysore district, Mysore 570001.
(RC owner of Tractor bearing Reg
No. KA.55.T.0527)
(By Sri. Veerabhadraswamy H P,
Advocate)
2. IFFCO Tokio Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.,
KSCMF building, 3rd floor,
No.8, Cunningham road,
Bengaluru 560052.
Policy No: 1-22WYS09M P400
Policy # MM11964
Valid from 21.10.2021 to 20.10.2022.
(By Sri. T Ramesh, Advocate)
: JUDGMENT:
Petitioners have filed Claim Petition U/Sec.166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of Murthy, in road traffic accident occurred on 01.05.2022. SCCH-2 3 M.V.C.3529/2022
2. The brief facts of the petition are as under:
On 01.05.2022 at about 12.30 p.m., the Murthy was proceeding in a Tractor bearing No. KA.55.T.0527 as a coolie which was driven by one Sunil Kumar from Hanuru towards Nataraju's land situated at Yellemarada road in a rash and negligent manner. When they reached near DR Hardware at Tea shop, Hanuru town, Hanuru taluk, Chamarajanagar, the Murthy who was sitting on the right side of the said tractor lost control due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, the injured was shifted to Holy cross hospital, after first aid he was shifted to JSS hospital, Mysore for further treatment, wherein the doctors examined and declared him as dead on the way to the hospital. Thereafter, the postmortem was conducted at K R Hospital and handed over the body to the petitioners. The petitioners have spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards conveyance, death ceremony and obsequies etc., Prior to the accident, deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 39 years, doing coolie work and thereby earning SCCH-2 4 M.V.C.3529/2022 Rs.18,000/- per month. The deceased was contributing his entire income to the welfare of the family. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners have suffered mentally and physically and lost their bread earner.
Further, the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor bearing No. KA.55.T.0527 by its driver. As such Hanur police have registered case against the said driver in Cr No. 49/2022 for the offences punishable U/Sec.279 and 304(a) of IPC. The 1st respondent is the RC owner and 2nd respondent is the insurer of the said vehicle. Hence both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. With these averments they prayed to allow the petition.
3. In response to service of notice, both the respondents have appeared before the tribunal through their respective counsels and respondent No.2 has filed written statement.
4. The written statement averments of 2 nd respondent is as hereunder:
SCCH-2 5 M.V.C.3529/2022
This respondent has admitted the issuance of policy in respect of the Tractor bearing No. KA.55.T.0527 and contended that, the liability of this respondent if any is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Inter-alia contended that, the driver of the tractor was not having valid driving license as on the date of accident and also the vehicle was also not having valid permit and FC as on the date of accident. Further contended that, there is no compliance of Sec.134(c) & Sec.158(6) of MV Act. Further contended that, as per the pleadings of the petitioner and police documents, the deceased was proceeding in a Tractor bearing No. KA.55.T.0527. But the seating capacity of the tractor is only one and deceased was unauthorized person in the insured vehicle and does not cover the risk. Further the contended that, the claim petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as the driver of the said tractor is not made as party to the proceedings. There is one day delay is lodging the complaint. Further, it has denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is exorbitant and fanciful. With these grounds, the 2nd respondent prayed to dismiss the petition against it.SCCH-2 6 M.V.C.3529/2022
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the predecessor in office has framed the following:
: I S S U E S:
1. Whether petitioners proves that Murthy was died on 01.05.2022 due to the injuries sustained in the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of driver of Tractor bearing No. KA.55.T.0527 as stated in the petition?
2. Whether the petitioners prove the age and income of the deceased?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the reliefs sough for ?
4. What order or award?
6. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, 1 st petitioner got examined as PW.1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 were got marked. P.W.1 was cross-examined from the side of respondent No.2. Further one eye witness namely Krishna got examined as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P13. Per contra, respondent No.2 has examined its official as RW.1 and got SCCH-2 7 M.V.C.3529/2022 marked the documents at Ex.R.1 & Ex.R2. RW.1 was cross- examined from the side of petitioners.
7. Heard the arguments from both side.
8. Perused the records placed before the tribunal. The findings of this Tribunal on the above referred Issues are as hereunder:-
Issue No.1 :- In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2:- In the Partly affirmative. Issue No.3 :- In the partly Affirmative.
Issue No.4:- As per final order for
the following.
:REASONS:
9. ISSUE No.1:- Before going to discuss issue No.1, it is worth to refer the decision reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530 between Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court 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 SCCH-2 8 M.V.C.3529/2022 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".
Therefore, it is crystal clear that, the petitioners have to prove their case on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.
10. It is the case of the petitioners that, on 01.05.2022 at about 12.30 p.m., the Murthy was proceeding in a Tractor bearing No. KA.55.T.0527 as a coolie which was driven by one Sunil Kumar from Hanuru towards Nataraju's land situated at Yellemarada road in a rash and negligent manner. When they reached near DR Hardware at Tea shop, Hanuru town, Hanuru taluk, Chamarajanagar, the Murthy who was sitting on the right side of the said tractor lost control due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, the injured was shifted to Holy cross hospital, after first aid he was shifted to JSS hospital, Mysore for further treatment, wherein the doctors examined and SCCH-2 9 M.V.C.3529/2022 declared him as dead on the way to the hospital. To prove their case, petitioners have lead oral and documentary evidence.
11. The 1st petitioner, who is the wife of deceased has examined herself as P.W.1 and filed affidavit by way of examination in chief and reiterated the averments made in the petition. She has also produced 12 documents, which were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. It is relevant to note that, respondents have contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself.
12. In order to answer Issue No.1, it is appropriate to take Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5, Ex.P11 & Ex.P12 for discussion. Ex.P.1 is the true copy of FIR. Ex.P.2 is the true copy of complaint. Ex.P.3 is the true copy of charge sheet. Ex.P.4 is the true copy of spot mahazar. Ex.P5 is the true copy of Inquest Report. Ex.P11 is the true copy of postmortem report and Ex.P12 is the true copy IMV report.
13. According to respondents No.2, the alleged accident was occurred due to the deceased himself who was SCCH-2 10 M.V.C.3529/2022 proceeding in a Tractor bearing No. KA.55.T.0527 along with the driver as Coolie. Further contended that, the seating capacity of the tractor is only one and deceased was unauthorized person in the insured vehicle and does not cover the risk. In order to substantiate their contention, the 2nd respondent has examined its official as R.W.1. RW.1 has filed affidavit by reiterating the written statement averments. RW.1 was cross examined by the learned counsel for petitioners.
14. Now, the important question before this Tribunal is to find out whether the accident occurred due to rash or negligent driving of Tractor bearing No. KA.55.T.0527 by its driver or not? In order to answer this aspect, it is appropriate to take Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5, Ex.P11 & Ex.P12 for discussion. On careful perusal of Ex.P1, the Hanur police have registered case against the driver of Tractor bearing No. KA.55.T.0527 in Cr No.49/2022 on the basis of complaint given by wife of the deceased as per Ex.P1. Thereafter, the investigating officer has drawn spot mahazar as per Ex.P4. Thereafter, the investigating officer after SCCH-2 11 M.V.C.3529/2022 thorough investigation, has filed charge sheet against the driver of the Tractor bearing No. KA.55.T.0527 as per Ex.P.3 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 279 & 304(a) of IPC and also U/Sec.184 of MV Act. It is relevant to note that, though respondent No.2 has denied the rash or negligent act of the driver of Tractor bearing No. KA.55.T.0527, in order to substantiate the same, the 2nd respondent has not placed any material before this Tribunal and they have not examined the driver of tractor. Therefore, it is manifest that, the materials placed on record by the petitioners is sufficient to believe that, the accident took place due to rash or negligent driving of driver of the Tractor bearing No. KA.55.T.0527.
15. Again it is worth to rely on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2003 Karnataka page 493, between Mallamma Vs. Balaji and Others, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held at para 12 as hereunder: " Filing of the charge sheet against the driver is also a prima-facie case to hold that, the driver of the said lorry was responsible for the accident and SCCH-2 12 M.V.C.3529/2022 burden shifts on him to prove the same". Therefore, the above referred decision is squarely applicable to the case on hand.
16. Further, on perusal of Ex.P5 & Ex.P11 i.e., inquest report and postmortem report, it is evident that the deceased Murthy was died due to the complications of head injury sustained by him in the alleged accident.
17. At the cost of repetition, the contents of complaint and charge sheet clearly reveals that, when the deceased Mruthy was proceeding in a Tractor bearing No. KA.55.T.0527, the driver of the said tractor driven the same in a rash or negligent manner, due to which the deceased lost control, fell down, sustained grievous injuries and died due to the injuries. The evidence placed on record clearly reveals that, the accident was occurred due to rash or negligent driving of Tractor bearing No. KA.55.T.0527 by its driver. There are no materials placed by the insurance company to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative. SCCH-2 13 M.V.C.3529/2022
18. ISSUE No.2:- Age: According to the petitioners, the age of deceased was 39 years at the time of his death. In order to substantiate the same the petitioners have produced the Aadhaar Card of deceased marked at Ex.P6. On perusal of Ex.P6, the date of birth of deceased is shown as 01.01.1983. The accident was occurred on 01.05.2022. Hence as on the date of accident, the age of deceased is 39 years and 04 months. Therefore, by relying on the judgment of our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA 5353/2024 (MV-D) decided on 07th August 2025 between The Managing Director, Motor Claims Hub BMTC, Shanthinagar, Bengaluru Vs. Smt. Jyothi and others, this tribunal considered the completed age of petitioner. Accordingly, the age of the petitioner is considered as 39 years as on the date of accident.
19. Income of the deceased:- PW.1 has deposed that, at the time of accident, her husband was doing Coolie work and earning Rs.18,000/- per month. However, to substantiate the exact income of the deceased, the petitioners have not produced any documents. At this SCCH-2 14 M.V.C.3529/2022 juncture, it is worth to rely on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka decided in M.F.A. No.101144 of 2020 ( MV-I) on 05.07.2023, between Ananda Vs. Arun and Another, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Para 9 (b) as hereunder:
" In the absence of any cogent material on record, it is for the courts and Tribunals to assess the income notionally. The notional income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority for the accident of the year 2017 is Rs.10,250/-. In the absence of any material produced by the claimant to prove his income, it is appropriate to assess the notional income of the injured claimant at Rs.10,250/- per month, and the same is assessed as the monthly income of the injured claimant".
20. In the instant case also, the petitioners have not produced the documents to establish the income of deceased. As such in the absence of reliable document and supportive evidence, the notional income of the deceased is to be considered by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka referred to above. As per the SCCH-2 15 M.V.C.3529/2022 notional income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority for the accident in the year 2022 is Rs.15,500/- per month. Hence, the notional income of the deceased is considered as Rs.15,500/- per month. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered in the partly Affirmative.
21. ISSUE No.3:- This issue is with regard to entitlement of relief. According to the petition averments, petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2 is the son and petitioner No.3 is the mother of the deceased. The 1 st petitioner has lost her husband and petitioner No.2 has lost his loving father at his tender age and petitioner No.3 has lost her son. Moreover, the bond between the parents and children is an eternal. At this juncture it is worth to refer the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka rendered in M.F.A.No.102868 of 2014 (M.V.D.), between Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Gangappa Saunshi and Others, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that, "even if the dependency is relevant criteria to claim compensation for loss of dependency, it does not mean financial dependency and the dependency includes SCCH-2 16 M.V.C.3529/2022 gratuitous service dependency, physical dependency, emotional dependency and psychological dependency so on and so forth, which can never be equated in terms of the money. Even married sons and daughters are entitled for compensation not only on conventional heads, but also on loss of dependency". Hence, Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are considered as dependents of deceased.
22. Already this Tribunal has observed that, as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 39 years. The Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, held that "if the person died in the motor accident, the income with respect to the future prospects has to be taken into consideration while awarding compensation". It is relevant to note that The Hon'ble Apex Court has provided the chart for the age of the deceased and percentage of future prospects as hereunder:
"If the deceased is self employed or fixed salary, his age below 40 years, future prospects is 40%".SCCH-2 17 M.V.C.3529/2022
"If the deceased between 40 to 50 years age, future prospects is 25%".
"If the deceased between 50 to 60 years age, future prospects is 10% and if the deceased more than 60 years, no addition as future prospects".
23. The deceased was aged about 39 years and therefore, additional income is to be added to the income towards future prospects. In the instant case, the deceased was 39 years. Hence, the future prospects of 40% is to be added to the income of deceased. By applying the principles of above ruling, 40% of the income of Rs.15,500/- is Rs.6,200. By adding the said amount with Rs.15,500/-, monthly income of deceased would be Rs.21,700/- (i.e., Rs.15,500 + Rs.6,200/-).
24. The 1st petitioner is the wife, petitioner No.2 is the minor son and petitioner No.3 is the mother of the deceased. Already this court has observed that, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are the dependents of the deceased. Therefore, by applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarala Verma SCCH-2 18 M.V.C.3529/2022 case, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards his personal living expenses. The same comes to Rs. 21,700 - Rs.7,233/- = Rs.14,467/-. Then total income of the deceased per annum comes to Rs.1,73,604/- (Rs.14,467/- x 12 = 1,73,604/-).
25. The deceased was 39 years old at the time of death, the multiplier 15 is applied, which is appropriate to the age of deceased. Then the loss of dependency is calculated as hereunder: Rs.1,73,604/- X 15 = Rs.26,04,060/-. Therefore, this Tribunal deems it just and reasonable to grant compensation of Rs.26,04,060/- under the head of loss of dependency.
26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others has laid down the guidelines with regard to awarding compensation towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium. The petitioners have contended that, they have spent some amount towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. In order to substantiate the same, they have not produced any documents. SCCH-2 19 M.V.C.3529/2022
27. Now the question before this Tribunal is whether petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are also entitled for consortium or not? Admittedly, the 1st petitioner is the wife, petitioner No.2 is the minor son and petitioner No.3 is the mother of the deceased. At this juncture, it is worth to rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130 between Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nanuram @ Churu Ram and Others. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that, the parents and children are having right to get the compensation under consortium. Therefore, the 1st petitioner is entitled for Rs.44,000/- under the head of spousal consortium and petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are entitled for Rs.44,000/- each under the head of and parental consortium and filial consortium respectively. Further, Rs.16,500/- is awarded for funeral expenses and also Rs.16,500/- is awarded towards loss of estate.
28. The details of compensation amount is as under:
S.No. Heads Rs.
1. Towards loss of Rs. 26,04,060/-
Dependency.
SCCH-2 20 M.V.C.3529/2022
2. Towards spousal, Rs. 1,32,000/-
parental and filial 44,000 X 3
consortium
3. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/-
4. Funeral expense Rs. 16,500/-
Total Rs. 27,69,060/-
Hence, petitioners are entitled for just and reasonable amount of Rs. 27,69,060/-.
29. Regarding liability and interest.
Driving License:- Charge sheet submitted by IO does not reveals that the driver of Tractor bearing No. KA.55.T.0527 was driving the vehicle without valid and effective DL. Therefore, it appears to this Tribunal that, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding valid D.L. to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
Insurance Policy and liability:- In the written statement respondent No.2 has admitted the issuance of policy in respect of Tractor bearing No. KA.55.T.0527 and was in force as on the date of accident. Further, contended that as per the pleadings of the petitioner and police documents, the deceased was proceeding in a Tractor SCCH-2 21 M.V.C.3529/2022 bearing No. KA.55.T.0527. But the seating capacity of the tractor is only one and deceased was unauthorized person in the insured vehicle and does not cover the risk. Per contra, the case of the petitioner is that, the deceased was working as a coolie. As such he was proceeding in the tractor. During the course of cross-examination of PW.1, the PW.1 has clearly admitted that the tractor has seating capacity only for driver. She further volunteers that her husband was sitting in a mud guard. The learned counsel for insurance company vehemently argued that, when the deceased was travelling on a mud guard of the tractor, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. On the other hand, the owner of the tractor has to pay the compensation. He has relied on the following decisions:
i) 2006 ACJ 671 between National Ins.
Co. Ltd., Vs. Bramaranbike and others.
ii) AIR 2021 KAR 102 between Gadhilingappa @ Gadhilinga and another Vs. K Guleppa K Lingappa and another.
iii) MFA No. 6154/2019 (MV-D) between Hemalatha @ Hema @ Hemavathi and SCCH-2 22 M.V.C.3529/2022 others Vs. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., and another.
30. Per contra the learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that the deceased was proceeding in a tractor as a coolie. He has relied on the following decisions:
i) Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2135/2023 between The Royal Sundaram Alliance Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt Honnamma and others.
ii) First Appeal From Order No. 1780/2024 between ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt Arti Devi and others.
31. Further learned counsel for petitioner brought to the notice of this tribunal regarding the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court decided in the case of Shivaraj Vs. Rajendra and another and the same has been reported in 2018 (10) SCC 432. The learned counsel for petitioners would submit that in the said case the accident was caused while traveling in the tractor. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case ordered to pay and recovery. Hence the said decision is aptly applicable to the case on hand and prayed to order for pay SCCH-2 23 M.V.C.3529/2022 and recovery in this case also.
32. This tribunal has carefully perused the decisions relied by the petitioners as well as the 2 nd respondent side. It is true that, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in a case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Bramaranbike and another held that, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation if the person died while he was traveling on the mud guard of a tractor. Further, the full bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that, "the liability of a person sitting on the mud guard of a tractor is not required to be covered by statutory insurance policy as contemplated U/Sec. 147(1) of IMV Act''.
33. Further the Honb'le Apex Court held in Spl. Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2135/2023 between the Royal Sundaram Allianz Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Honnamma and others that, no separate policy is required for trailer. The trailer is only a vehicle and not a motor vehicle. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, the liability of the tractor/ its insurer extended to the accident caused by the tractor resulting in SCCH-2 24 M.V.C.3529/2022 the death of deceased, through the trailer.
34. In the said case, the deceased was traveling in a tractor and trailer as a coolie. After accident a claim petition came to be filed before the MACT. After considering the evidence, the MACT awarded a compensation and fastened the liability to satisfy the award on the owner and the driver. Thereafter the claimants preferred MFA before the Hon'ble High Court for enhancement. The Hon'ble High Court fastened the liability of compensation on the insurance company. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company has filed the appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court. After considering all the aspects the Hon'ble Apex Court finds that, there is no infirmity in the impugned order either with regard to the quantum of compensation or fixation of liability on the insurance company.
35. In so far as the case of Shivaraj Vs. Rajendra and another is concerned the appellate was travelling in a tractor and driver of the tractor was driving the vehicle at a high speed and caused the accident at about 8.30 a.m. on SCCH-2 25 M.V.C.3529/2022 23.02.2010. The appellant filed claim petition before the MACT Bengaluru, the MACT awarded the compensation. The insurance company preferred MFA before the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court held that, "the appellant traveled in the tractor in breach of policy terms and conditions and therefore the insurance company cannot be made liable to compensate the owner or the claimant''. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the insurance company was allowed. Thereafter, the appellant in the said case preferred appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that, the Hon'ble High Court was justified in not disturbing the conclusion with regard to the determination of compensation. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court directing the insurance company to pay the compensation amount determined by the tribunal and affirmed by the High court to the appellant in the first place and liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending tractor in accordance with law. In the instant case also the deceased was travelling in a tractor as a Coolie. In other words the evidence of PW.1 & SCCH-2 26 M.V.C.3529/2022 PW.2 clearly give an indication that deceased Murthy was traveling in a tractor as a coolie. Hence this court is of the opinion that Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent legislation. As such the claimants cannot be deprived of the compensation. Therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2018 (10) SCC 432 in a case of Shivaraj Vs. Rajendra and another is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
36. By relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2018 (10) SCC 432 in a case of Shivaraj Vs. Rajendra and another, the 2nd respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization and further the 2 nd respondent-insurer is at liberty to recover the award amount from the 1st respondent - R.C. owner of the Tractor bearing Reg No. KA.55.P.0527 in accordance with law. Accordingly, Issue No.3 is answered in the Partly Affirmative. SCCH-2 27 M.V.C.3529/2022
37. Issue No.4:-. In view of discussion made above, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following.
:ORDER:
Claim Petition filed by the Petitioners U/Sec.166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with costs of the Petition.
Petitioners are awarded just and reasonable compensation of Rs.27,69,060/- (Rupees Twenty seven lakhs sixty nine thousand and sixty Only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition to till the date of depositing of the compensation amount in the court.
Respondent No.2 being the insurer shall deposit the compensation amount in the Tribunal within 2 months from the date of this judgment. It is clarified that, the insurer viz. 2nd respondent is at liberty to recover the compensation amount from the 1st respondent-owner of the tractor in accordance with law.
Draw award accordingly.
SCCH-2 28 M.V.C.3529/2022Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
: APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION :
On deposit of compensation amount, Petitioner No.1 is entitled for 40%, petitioner No.2 is entitled for 40% and petitioner No.3 is entitled for 20% with interest.
50% of share of petitioner No.1 with interest is to be paid to her through NEFT/RTGS by way of E-payment on proper identification as per rules and after verifying the stay order from the Hon'ble Appellate Court and remaining 50% of her share with interest shall be invested in F.D. in her name in any nationalized bank or scheduled bank of her choice for a period of 3 years. It is clarified that, the 1st petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on her deposit amount from time to time.
Entire share of petitioner No.2 with interest shall be invested in F.D. in her name in any nationalized bank or scheduled bank until she attains the age of majority. It is clarified that, the 1 st SCCH-2 29 M.V.C.3529/2022 petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on the deposit amount from time to time.
Entire share of petitioner No.3 with interest is to be paid to her through NEFT/RTGS by way of E-payment on proper identification as per rules. (Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, revised and corrected by me, and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 18th November, 2025) (H.P. Mohan Kumar) VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, and MACT, Bengaluru : ANNEXURE :
List of witnesses examined for petitioners:
P.W.1 : Smt. Puttamma. P.W.2 : Sri Krishna.
List of exhibited documents marked for petitioners:
Ex.P-1 : True copy of FIR.
Ex.P-2 : True copy of complaint.
SCCH-2 30 M.V.C.3529/2022
Ex.P-3 : True copy of Charge sheet.
Ex.P-4 : True copy of spot mahazar.
Ex.P-5 : True copy of inquest report.
Ex.P-6 to : Notarized copes of Aadhar cards pertaining to
Ex.P9 deceased and petitioners.
Ex.P-10 : Notarized copy of ration card.
Ex.P-11 : PM report.
Ex.P-12 : IMV report.
Ex.P-13 : Notarized copy of Aadhar card.
List of witnesses examined for tfhe Respondents:
R.W.1 : Rasika Bandekar.
List of exhibited documents marked for the
Respondents:
Ex.R-1 : Authorization letter.
Ex.R-2 : True copy of Policy.
(H.P. Mohan Kumar)
VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes,
and MACT, Bengaluru