Bangalore District Court
Meenakshi vs K.S.R.T.C on 7 January, 2026
KABC020125282025
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU. (SCCH-_25)
-: PRESENT:-
PRESENT: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA. R,
B.A.L, LL.B.,
XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF JANUARY 2026
MVC No.2100/2025
PETITIONER: 1. Smt. Meenakshi
W/o Late Venkatarahym
Aged about 63 years,
2. Sri. Venkatesh V.
S/o Late Venkataraju,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at #29, 12th Cross
RGI Colony, LN Puram,
Bangalore - 560 021.
3. Smt. Vidhya V.
D/o Late Venkataraju,
W/o Nagesha,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at No.121, Kodi
Anjeneyaswamy Temple
Street,
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.2100/2025
Mutthaiah Thota, Near By
Maheshwaramma Temple,
Bommasandra,
Bangalore - 562 125.
(By Sri. R. Chandra
Shekhar, Advocate/s.)
V/S
RESPONDENTS: The Managing Director
Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation,
Transpot House Central
Offices, KH Road,
Shanthinagar,
Bangalore - 560 027.
Owner of the KSRTC Bus
bearing Rwg.No.KA-40-F-
1550.
(Sri. Mahadevaiah,
Advocate.)
******
JUDGMENT
This judgment arise out of claim petition filed by the claimants against respondent under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "Act") praying for awarding compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of Sri. VENKATRAJU in a road traffic accident that occurred on 01.02.2025 at about 1.15pm.
SCCH-25 3 MVC No.2100/20252. The case of the claimants in nutshell is that:
On 01.02.2025 at about 1.15pm, the deceased Venkataraju after selling the vegetables at Doddaballapura Railway Station returning home on their TVS bearing Reg.No.KA-04-Y-7370, as he was riding his TVS near Hosabadavane, Siddanayakanahalli, Doddaballapura Town, a KSRTC bus bearing Reg. No.KA-40-F-1550 which was coming from Bangalore with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, without observing any traffic norms and regulations, endangering human life, suddenly the driver of the bus turned his bus towards right side and dashed against the deceased's motorcycle and further hit against the divider. Due to impact, the deceased suffered grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Doddaballapura, wherein provided first aid and thereafter shifted to NIMHANS, Bangalore and he was succumbed to the grievous injuries at 4.04pm. Later PM was conducted at Government Hospital, Doddaballapura and handed over the body to the petitioners. They performed funeral and obsequious ceremonies by spending a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.
3. It is the further case of the petitioners SCCH-25 4 MVC No.2100/2025 that, prior to the date of accident deceased was hale and healthy, he was a vegetable Vendor and earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- Per month and he was contributing his entire income for welfare and maintenance of petitioners and he was very affectionate to the petitioners. Due to the sudden and untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners have lost their loving husband and father respectively thereby, the petitioners are undergoing great mental shock, agony and financial loss. Hence, the petitioners claims Rs.40,00,000/- as the general damages for death of deceased, for mental shock and agony, for loss of earnings, loss of future earning of the deceased, for loss of love and affections. The respondent being the RC owner and the Insurer of the offending KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-40-F- 1550 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
4. The accident in question was taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-40-F-1550. The Doddaballapura Town Police have registered a case against the driver of the offending KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-40-F-1550 in Cr.No.0019/2025. For the aforesaid reasons, the claimants have prayed for awarding total compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-
SCCH-25 5 MVC No.2100/2025under various heads.
5. In pursuance of the notice, the respondent appeared and filed written statement.
5A. It has denied the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-40-F-1550, the accident and grievous injuries to the petitioner. Further denied the manner of accident. It has denied the avocation and income, treatment and medical expenses. Further stated the true fact that the KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-40- F-1550 was proceeding from Gowribidanur to Pavagada via Bangalore, driven by its driver slowly, carefully on the left side of the road observing all the traffic rules and regulations. When the said KSRTC Bus proceeding slowly reached near Seedenayakanahalli (Doddaballapura Town), a Two Wheeler bearing No.KA-04-Y-7370 came with high speed, ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner, without wearing helmet came in the same direction on the left side of the road, immediately without giving any indication took turn from left side towards right side of the road, this dangerous situation observed by the said KSRTc Bus driver for the purpose of avoiding the accident took turn the SCCH-25 6 MVC No.2100/2025 said bus towards right side while doing so dashed against the middle road divider, the rider of the said two wheeler puzzled and not control over the said two wheeler fell down on the road, suffered head injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Doddaballapura, wherein provided first aid wand for further treatment shifted to NIMHANS Hospital, Banalore, he was succumbed to the grievous injuries. This accident was occurred purely on the part of the rash and negligent manner of the said deceased as stated above. The driver of the said KSRTC bus was not all responsbile for the accident. Further stated that, the Respondent/KSRTC authority has paid interim compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased. Further denied the age, occupation, income, expenses incurred by the petitioners towards conveyance, death ceremony and obsequies etc., Further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed for determination.
SCCH-25 7 MVC No.2100/2025Issue No.1:Whether the petitioners prove that, they are the legal representatives and dependants of the deceased Sri.Venkataraju S/o Late Gangadhara?
Issue No.2:Whether the petitioners prove that, the deceased Sri.Venkataraju S/o Late Gangadhara, had died due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident that occurred on 01-02-2025 at about 1.15pm, near Hosbadavane, Siddanayakanahalli, Dodaballapura, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-40-F-
1550 as alleged?
Issue No.3:Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as claimed? If so, what amount and from whom?
Issue No.4:What order or Award?
7. In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioner No.1 has examined herself as PW-1 and got marked total 13 documents as Exs.P1 to 13. The respondent/KSRTC Bus Driver got examined himself as RW.1 and did not mark any documents on his behalf.
8. I have heard the arguments canvassed by the counsel for the parties.
SCCH-25 8 MVC No.2100/20259. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence let in before this tribunal, my answers to the above points are as follows:
Issue No.1 : Partly in affirmative Issue No.2 : In the affirmative Issue No.3 : Partly in affirmative Issue No.3 : As per final order, for the foregoing;
REASONS
10. Issue Nos.1 and 2: As I referred above, In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioner No.1 has examined himself as PW-1 and got marked total Thirteen documents as Ex.P1 to 13 and closed their side evidence. The respondent has got examined the KSRTC Driver as RW.1 and did not mark any document. The details of the exhibits are given in the annexure of the judgment.
11. The PW.1 has reiterated the petition averments in the chief examination. The PW.1 has been subjected to cross examination. In the cross examination of PW.1, she has admitted that the motorcycle was belonged to her husband and she has not seen the accident. The complaint was lodged by her sister-in-law's son. The second respondent has independently leading his life. Her husband died SCCH-25 9 MVC No.2100/2025 on the same day of accident in the hospital. Further admitted that she has received interim compensation of Rs.25,000/-. She further denied other suggestions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
12. To prove the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased, they have produced attested copies of Aadhar Cards and PAN Card of the petitioners and the deceased as per Exs.P.11 to 13. Ex.P.6 Inquest mahazar also shows the names and relationship of the petitioners with the deceased. The petitioner No.3 is married daughter and she is living in their matrimonial house. The petitioner No.2 is major son of the deceased and earning themselves for their livelihood. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held in 1 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 242-243 of 2020 decided on 13.01.2020 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 976- 077 of 2020) :2020 ACJ 759 in paragraph No.14 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 deceased. This Court 1 National Insurance company Limited V/s Birender and Ors.
SCCH-25 10 MVC No.2100/2025in Manjuri Berea had expounded that the liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of dependency of the concerned legal representative. Notably, the expression legal representative has not been defined in the Act. In Manjuri Bera (supra) the Court has observed thus;-
"9. In terms of Clause (c) of Sub-
section (1) of section 166 of the Act in case of death, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to compensation and ay such legal repersentative can file a claim petition. The proviso to said sub-section makes the position clear that where all the legal repersentative had not joined, then application cannot be made on behalf of the legal repersentatives of the deceased by ipleading those legal Representatives as respondents.
Therefore, the high Court was justified in its view that the appellant could maintain a claim petition in terms of section 166 of the Act.
10: ..... The Tribunal has a duty to SCCH-25 11 MVC No.2100/2025 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.
11. According to section 2(11) of CPC, "legal representative means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who inter meddles sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued almost in similar terms is the definition of the legal representative under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 i.e., under section 2(1)(g).
12. As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino v Nalini Bai Naique (1989 Supp (2) SCC 275 the definition contained in section 2(11) CPC is inclusive in character and its SCCH-25 12 MVC No.2100/2025 scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only. Instead, it stipulates that a person who may or may not be legal heir competent to inherit the property of the the deceased can represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of he estate of he deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression Legal Representatives. As observed in Gujarth SRTC V Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (1987) 3 SCC 234 a legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband parent and child.:-
In paragraph 15 of the said decision, while adverting to the provisions of section 150 of the Act, the Court observed theat even if there is no loss of dependency, the claimant, if he was a legal representative, will be entitled to compensation. In the concurring SCCH-25 13 MVC No.2100/2025 judgment of Justice S.H. Kapadia, as His Lordship then was, it is observed that there is distinction between right to apply for compensation and entitlement to compensation. The compensation constitutes part of the estate of the deceased. As a result, the legal representatives of the deceased would inherit the estate. Indeed, in that case, the Court was dealing with the case of a married daughter of the deceased and the efficacy of section 140 of the Act. Nevertheless, the principle underlying the exposition in this decision would clearly come to the aid of the respondent No.1 and 2 (claimants) even though they are major sons of the deceased and also earning".
13. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharawad Bench in MFA No.102868 of 2014(MV-D) dated 04.08.20222 held in paragraph No.22 and 23 that;
"22. No doubt learned counsel for the insurance company also relied upon judgment in Manjuri Bera decided on 30.03.2007, wherein the Apex Court discussed earlier the contention taken by married daughter and same was rejected as she 2 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Gangappa and others.SCCH-25 14 MVC No.2100/2025
is not dependent. But in view of recent judgment in Birender, the Apex Court discussed in detail regarding the word 'legal reperesentative of the deceased' and considering an application under section 166(1) of motor vehicle Act and the judgment in Manjuri Bera is also taken note of by the Apex Court and held that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation irrespective of the fact whether legal representative was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. Hence, the said contention of insurance company cannot be accepted in view of Birender's case.
23. The Apex Court in the said judgment further held even married sons are also entitled for compensation. This Court also cannot make any discrimination whether they are married sons or married daughters and hence, very contention that married daughters of deceased are not entitled for compensation cannot be accepted and the court has to take note of the rationable behind in coming to the conclusion of even married sons and major sons are eligible to claim compensation and hence the married daughters also entitle for compensation on all the heads and not to limit only for conventional heads"SCCH-25 15 MVC No.2100/2025
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in the case of DEEP SHIKHA AND ANOTHER Vs NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS3 held in paragraph No.13:
"Once a daughter is married, logical presumption is that she now has rights on her matrimonial household and is also financially supported by her husband or his family, unless proven otherwise. It is more than likely that her dependence on her natal family, including her mother has now ceased. Section 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act focus on financial relationship between the deceased and the claimant. A married daughter may be considered a legal representative, as per Manjuri Bera, but she will not be eligible for loss of dependency compensation unless it is proven by the daughter that she was financially dependent on the deceased."
15. In the present case on hand, the married daughter have pleaded about financial dependency in the plaint but she has not stepped into the witness box to strengthen their case. Therefore, it is appears to Court that the petitioner No.3 has not at all dependent on the income of the deceased.
3 SLP (civil) No.(s) 22265-22266 of 2018, dated 13.05.2025:2025 LiveLaw (SC) 561 SCCH-25 16 MVC No.2100/2025
16. The petitioners have totally relied on the police documents to establish the negligence on the part of the deceased and offending vehicle's driver. It is no doubt the police have submitted the charge sheet against the driver of the offending KSRTC Bus after thorough investigation. It is not in disputed that both the vehicles were proceedings in the same direction. The accident was occurred on the 30 feet Tar Road and the road was divided by two portion i.e., 15 feet each side. The accident occurred near the divider. It is the specific case of the respondent that the deceased was suddenly taken the bike from left to right, in order to avoid the collusion, the driver of the offending vehicle has taken his vehicle towards right side and dashed to divider. If it is taken into consideration, there should be damages to cement bricks which was used as divider of the road. The spot mahazar does not referred the damages to the cement bricks. Only on this count, the defense of the respondent can not be ruled out. The damages appeared in the motor vehicle accident report marked at Ex.P5 indicates the offending vehicle has got damaged on the front bumper, both side head light assembly damaged, radiator grill damaged. It is worth note herein the road was not in straight direction and it was slightly deviation after the SCCH-25 17 MVC No.2100/2025 accident spot. So, it indicates that the driver of the offending vehicle has tried to overtake the deceased in the congested road and dashed to cement bricks and also the deceased vehicle. A perusal of the charge sheet, the police have submitted the charge sheet against the accused or driver of the offending vehicle which is belongs to respondent and further the police have charge sheet against the Driver of the respondent for the offense punishable under section 281, 106 of BNS. If the driver of the KSRTC Bus had taken minimal care, the accident would have been postponed or not occurred.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in a decision 42018 (5) SCC 656 held "24. It will be useful to advert to the dictum in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal [N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 774] , wherein it was contended by the vehicle owner that the criminal case in relation to the accident had ended in acquittal and for which reason the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act ought to be rejected. This Court negatived the said argument by observing that the nature of proof required to establish culpable rashness, punishable under IPC, is 4 Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., SCCH-25 18 MVC No.2100/2025 more stringent than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to create liability. The observation made in para 3 of the jud 80 gment would throw some light as to what should be the approach of the Tribunal in motor accident cases. The same reads thus :
"3. Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasising this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to SCCH-25 19 MVC No.2100/2025 their responsibility to their neighbor. Indeed, the State must seriously consider no-fault liability by legislation. A second aspect which pains us is the inadequacy of the compensation or undue parsimony practiced by tribunals. We must remember that judicial tribunals are State organs and Article 41 of the Constitution lays the jurisprudential foundation for State relief against accidental disablement of citizens. There is no justification for niggardliness in compensation. A third factor which is harrowing is the enormous delay in disposal of accident cases resulting in compensation, even if awarded, being postponed by several years. The States must appoint sufficient number of tribunals and the High Courts should insist upon quick disposals so that the trauma and tragedy already sustained may not be magnified by the injustice of delayed justice. Many States are unjustly indifferent in this regard."
25. In Dulcina Fernandes [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 :
(2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] , this Court examined similar situation where the evidence of claimant's eyewitness was discarded by the Tribunal and that the respondent in that case was acquitted in the criminal case concerning the accident. This SCCH-25 20 MVC No.2100/2025 Court, however, opined that it cannot be overlooked that upon investigation of the case registered against the respondent, prima facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial. The Court restated the settled principle that the evidence of the claimants ought to be examined by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied"
18. The Court cannot adopt strict liability as conducted in a criminal case to prove rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the respondent vehicle. But there should be prima-facie materials regarding rash and negligence to fix the owner and insurance company for payment of compensation. Therefore, a straight jacket formula cannot be adopted in accepting the rash and negligence on the part of driver of the Respondent. So, the materials on record clearly indicates that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of the offending KSRTC Bus. Hence, I answer issue No.1 partly in the affirmative and Issue No.2 in the affirmatively.SCCH-25 21 MVC No.2100/2025
19. Issue No.3:
The Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are the wife and children of the deceased. It is contention of the petitioners that the deceased was doing Vegetable Vendor and earning of Rs.25,000/- Per month. The petitioner No.1 has reiterated the same in the chief examination affidavit. But the petitioners have not placed any material worth in this regard. As per the claim petition the age of the deceased was 60 years. The Aadhar Card of the deceased at Ex.P.11 discloses that the deceased age was 64 years. As I mentioned above, the petitioners have not placed any material worth to show the exact income of the deceased. So, considering the nature of work, the chart prepared, furnished by the Hon'ble Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, Bengaluru is taken in to consideration, the notional income of Rs.17,000/-pm is calculated to award loss of earning, it would meets the ends of justice. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2017) 16 SCC 680 in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi and others, if a deceased person is more than 60 years there is no future prospects. In this case the deceased comes in the slab of more than 60 years, then the deceased did not get future prospects to his monthly income.SCCH-25 22 MVC No.2100/2025
As per Sarala Varma's case the multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 7. As I referred above, the petitioner No.3 is considered as a dependent. If there are 2 to 3 dependents then, 1/3rd of the deceased income has to be deducted towards his living expenses. Hence, 1/3rd of is to be deducted Then, Rs.5,666/- is to be deducted in Rs.17,000/- then it comes to Rs.11,334/-. As such Rs.11,334/- is to be taken as monthly income of the deceased. The loss of dependency is calculated as below. Rs.11,334/- (monthly income) x 12 x 7 (multiplier) =Rs.9,52,056/-. This is just and proper compensation under the head of loss of dependency.
LOSS OF ESTATE
20. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Pranay Sethi case in case of death in the maximum the Court can award Rs.18,150/- in lump sum under the head of loss of estate.
FUNERAL EXPENSES
21. In view of the Pranay Sethi's case this tribunal has no option but to award Rs.18,150/- under this head. Except these heads the claimants are not entitled for any compensation.SCCH-25 23 MVC No.2100/2025
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
22. In the present case, the Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 being the wife and children of the deceased and they are entitled for 'Spousal Consortium' 'Parental Consortium' respectively in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 5(2018) 18 SCC 130. Hence a sum of Rs.1,45,200/- (Rs.48,400/- each) is awarded under this head.
23. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation under the following heads.
Sl. Name of the Head Awarded
No. Compensation
01. Loss of dependency Rs.9,52,056=00
02. Towards loss of estate Rs.18,150=00
03. Towards Funeral Rs.18,150=00
expenses
04. Loss of Consortium Rs.1,45,200=00
TOTAL Rs.11,33,556=00
24. The next question is the liability to pay the said compensation. As I referred above the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent 5 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram SCCH-25 24 MVC No.2100/2025 driving by the driver of the KSRTC Bus. The RW.1 has admitted that the charge sheet is filed against him and he has not challenged the same. Further stated that the Respondent has paid the Interim Compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioners and the same was admitted by the PW.1 during his cross examination. The petitioners have claimed Rs.50,00,000/- but they are entitled of Rs.11,08,556=00 after deduction of Interim Compensation (Rs.11.33.556=00 - Rs.25,000=00) Therefore, Respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
25.APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION: The claimants Nos.1 and 2 being wife and son of the deceased. The petitioners have entitled for compensation at the ratio of 60:40. On deposit of compensation, the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are entitled to withdraw 50% of their share and 50% should de deposited in their name for a period of 3 years in any Nationalized Bank. The petitioner No.3 is entitled to an amount of Rs.48,400/- under the head of the consortium. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 partly in Affirmative.
26. Issue No.4:- In view of my findings to the SCCH-25 25 MVC No.2100/2025 above issues, the claimants are entitled for the compensation at the at rate of 6% P.A. from the respondent No.1. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The claim petition filed by
claimants under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is allowed in part.
The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.10,60,156=00 (Rupees Ten Lakhs Sixty Thousand One Hundred Fifty Six only) and the petitioner No.3 is entitled for Rs.48,400/- (Loss of Consortium) together interest @ 6% P.A from the date of petition till realization.
The respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and directed to deposit the same within 60 days from the date of this judgment, after deducting any amount paid as the interim compensation SCCH-25 26 MVC No.2100/2025 The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for 60:40 ratio respectively in the total compensation with accrued interest.
On deposit of compensation, the claimant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to withdraw 50% of their share and remaining share should be deposited as a FD for a period of 3 years in any nationalized bank.
Office is directed to release entire amount of Rs.48,400/- to petitioner No.3 with proper identification through e-payment.
All the interim application if any pending stands disposed off.
The advocate fee of Rs.1,000/-
fixed.
Draw Decree accordingly.
(Directly typed and computerized by the stenographer, corrected by me and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 7th day of January, 2026).
(Raghavendra. R.) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, Bangalore.SCCH-25 27 MVC No.2100/2025
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the Petitioner/s:
PW.1 : Smt. Meenakshi List of documents exhibited for the Petitioner/s:
Ex.P1 FIR
Exs.P2 Complaint 2 in Nos.
& P3
Ex.P4 Spot mahazar
Ex.P5 IMV report
Ex.P6 Inquest report
Ex.P7 PM report
Ex.P8 Charge sheet
Exs.P9 Police Notice and reply
& 10
Ex.P11 Attested copy of 3 Aadhar Cards.
Ex.P12 Attested copy of PAN Card
Ex.P13 Attested copy of Aadhar Card
List of witnesses examined for the respondent/s: RW.1 Sri. Anil Kumar Kanthappa Naykodi List of documents exhibited for the Respondent/s:
-- NIL --
(Raghavendra. R.) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, Bangalore.Digitally signed by RAMACHANDRAPPA
RAMACHANDRAPPA RAGHAVENDRA RAGHAVENDRA Date: 2026.01.20 13:41:37 +0530