Bangalore District Court
Chandra Babu vs Somashekhara H B on 6 November, 2025
KABC020284722023
BEFORE THE COURT OF 10th ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
AT: BENGALURU
(SCCH-16)
Present: Sri. Mohammed Yunus Athani
B.A.,LL.B.,
X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.6164/2023
Dated this 6th day of November, 2025
Petitioner: Chandra Babu S/o Gopalappa,
Aged about 46 years,
Residing at Kasavina Kunte,
Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk,
Bannerghatta, Bengaluru - 83.
(Sri G. C. Rajesh, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents: 1. Somashekhara H.B. S/o Boja
Gowda H.J.,
Age: Major,
R/at No.136, 9th Cross, 1st Stage,
Goukulam Vani Villas Mohalla,
Mysuru - 570 002.
(RC owner of Hyundai I20 car
2 MVC No.6164/2023
bearing Reg. No.KA-09-MC-5631)
(Sri Siddaraju K. S., Advocate)
2. Royal Sundaram General
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Office at No.30, 3rd Floor,
JNR City Centre, Raja Ram Mohan
Roy Road, Sampangi Rama
Nagara, Bengaluru - 27.
(Policy No.VPC1419722000102,
period 24-01-2023 to 23-01-2024)
(Sri V. Shrihari Naidu, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents, for the damage caused to the auto- rickshaw bearing No.KA-05-AL-5729 of the petitioner, in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :
On 16-08-2023 at about 8.30 a.m., the passenger auto-rickshaw bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AL-5729 of the 3 MVC No.6164/2023 petitioner was proceeding from Kabbalamma Temple towards Kanakapura side, driven by its driver by name Prathap Vardhan Reddy slowly and cautiously and on the extreme side of Kanakapura-Sathnoor road. When he reached near Patel Kaliregowdanadoddi Village, Sathanoor Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, at that time the driver of Hyundai i20 car bearing Reg. No.KA-09-MC- 5631, drove the same from Kanakapura side towards Sathnoor, with high speed, in rash and negligent manner, endangering to human life, on its extreme right side, without observing any traffic rules and regulations, and dashed against the auto-rickshaw of the petitioner and caused the accident. Due to the said impact, the said auto- rickshaw got toppled and got severely damaged. The petitioner is the R.C. owner of the said auto-rickshaw. It was newly registered vehicle, in very good running condition and the same was used for transportation of passengers on hire basis at Jigani, Bengaluru and was earning a sum of 4 MVC No.6164/2023 Rs.2,000/- per day. Due to the accident, the said vehicle remained unused for minimum 2 months, resulting in loss of 2 months earning of Rs.1,20,000/- to the petitioner. Due to damage caused to the auto-rickshaw, the petitioner has suffered loss of earning and put to great financial hardship. Immediately after the accident, the auto was shifted to Bengaluru for repair and the petitioner has spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards repair and spare parts charges in authorized service center and he has suffered irreparable loss. The Sathnoor Police have registered the case against the driver of the said car for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 of I.P.C. The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Hence, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition and award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest.5 MVC No.6164/2023
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the respondents No.1 and 2 have appeared through their respective counsel and filed their separate written statements.
4. The respondent No.1 in his written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. He has contended that, he was returning in his Hyundai i20 car after dropping her daughter at Dayanand Medical College, Kanakapura, when he was proceeding near Patel Kaliregowdanadood Village, Sathnoor Hobli, slowly on the left side of the road. At that time, the driver of auto bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AL-5729 drove the same with high speed, in rash and negligent manner, suddenly came to right side, lost control over the vehicle and the said vehicle turned turtle on the right side. On seeing the same the driver of respondent No.1 controlled his vehicle and the said vehicle dashed against the stone on the right side of the road. But, the auto driver and injured in order to claim compensation lodged 6 MVC No.6164/2023 false complaint against the vehicle of the respondent No.1. Further it is contended that, the driver of his vehicle was not rash and negligent in driving the said vehicle and not caused any accident to the auto-rickshaw. The compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. Further it is contended that, his driver was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and he had insured his vehicle with respondent No.2 and it was valid as on the date of accident. If this Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation, the respondent No.2 is liable to indemnify the respondent No.1 and to pay the compensation to the petitioner. For the above denials and contentions, it is prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. The respondent No.2 in its written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has denied the involvement of the car bearing No.KA-09-MC-5631 and also the manner of accident in the alleged accident. Further 7 MVC No.6164/2023 it is contended that, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties for the adjudication of the above petition. The driver of the auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-05-AL-5729, without a valid and effective driving licence drove the same, as on the date of the accident. It has denied that, the accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing Reg. No.KA-09-MC- 5631 by its driver. The driver of the said car was driving the same carefully, cautiously and on the correct side of the road, the accident in question has taken place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto-rickshaw bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AL-5729 by its driver. It has admitted the issuance of insurance policy in favour of respondent No.1, in respect of car bearing Reg. No.KA-09-MC-5631 and it was valid from 24-01-2023 to 23-01-2024. Further it is contended that, the owner of the car willfully entrusted the vehicle to the person who did not had a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same, on the date of the accident. Hence, 8 MVC No.6164/2023 there is breach and violations of the terms and conditions of the policy and as such the above claim petition is liable to be dismissed as against this respondent insurance company. It seeks protection under Section 147 and 149 of Motor Vehicles Act. It has contended that, the petition is bad for non-compliance of provision under Sections 134(c) and 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the driver of the auto-rickshaw has contributed to the cause of the accident and the degree of negligence on the part of the driver of auto-rickshaw was on the higher side. As such the liability if any, as far as respondent No.2 is concerned should considerably be reduced and mitigated by taking into consideration of the higher degree of the negligence on the part of the driver of the auto-rickshaw. Further, it has sought for permission to contest even on behalf of respondent No.1 under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. For 9 MVC No.6164/2023 the above denials and contentions, it is prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, his auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-05-AL-
5729 was damaged in the road traffic accident, alleged to have occurred on 16-08-2023 at about 8.30 a.m., near NH-
948, near Patel Kaliregowdanadoddi Village, Sathanooru Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car bearing registration No.KA-09- MC-5631 ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom ?
3. What order or award ?
10 MVC No.6164/2023
7. In order to prove his case, the petitioner has got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 9 documents as Ex.P.1 to 9. On the other hand, the respondents No.1 and 2 have not adduced any evidence on their side.
8. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the entire material placed on record.
9. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative Issue No.2: Negative Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
10. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioner that, on 16-08-2023 at about 8.30 a.m., near Patel Kaliregowdanadoddi Village, Sathanoor Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, when the passenger auto- rickshaw bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AL-5729 of the petitioner 11 MVC No.6164/2023 was proceeding from Kabbalamma Temple towards Kanakapura side, slowly and cautiously and on the extreme side of the road., at that time the driver of Hyundai i20 car bearing Reg. No.KA-09-MC-5631, drove the same from Kanakapura side towards Sathnoor, with high speed, in rash and negligent manner, on its extreme right side, without observing any traffic rules and regulations, and dashed against the auto-rickshaw of the petitioner and caused the accident. Due to the said impact, the said auto- rickshaw got toppled and got severely damaged. It was newly registered vehicle, in very good running condition and the same was used for transportation of passengers on hire basis at Jigani, Bengaluru and was earning a sum of Rs.2,000/- per day. Due to the accident, the said vehicle had remained unused for minimum 2 months, resulting in loss of 2 months earning of Rs.1,20,000/- to the petitioner. Due to damage caused to the auto-rickshaw, the petitioner has suffered loss of earning and put to great financial hardship. 12 MVC No.6164/2023
11. In order to prove its case, the petitioner has got examined himself as P.W.1, by filing his examination-in- chief affidavit, wherein he has reiterated the entire averments made in the petition. In support of his oral evidence, the petitioner has got marked total 9 documents as Ex.P.1 to 9. Out of the said documents, Ex.P.1 is true copy of F.I.R., Ex.P.2 is true copy of first information statement, Ex.P.3 is true copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P.4 is true copy of Motor Vehicle Accident report, Ex.P.5 is true copy of seizure mahazar, Ex.P.6 is true copy of charge-sheet, Ex.P.7 is true copy of notice issued under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act, Ex.P.8 is true copy of reply to said notice and Ex.P.9 is notarized copy of Aadhar card.
12. On meticulously going through the police documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 8, prima-facia it reveals that, the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car bearing 13 MVC No.6164/2023 No.KA-09-MC-5631 and dashing the same to oncoming auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-05-AL-5729 of the petitioner. Further it reveals that, due to said impact, the front shape, front wheel assembly and mudguard, suspension system wind screen glass and wiper, front both side rear view mirrors, tarpaulin, top hood and roofing, right and left side body, rear both side wheel mudguards, rear both side wheel assembly, steering system, seats, head light and indicators damaged to the auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-05- AL-5729. The investigation officer in his final report/charge- sheet, which is marked as Ex.P.6, has clearly stated that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car bearing Reg. No.KA- 09-MC-5631 and dashing the same to the auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-05-AL-5729 and the said auto-rickshaw is extensively damaged in the said accident.
13. At the outset, is it pertinent to note that, in the present case, the date, time and place of accident, 14 MVC No.6164/2023 involvement of car bearing Reg. No.KA-09-MC-5631 and auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-05-AL-5729 in the alleged accident, issuance of insurance policy by the respondent No.2 in respect of said car bearing Reg. No.KA-09-MC-5631 and its validity as on the date of accident, are not in dispute. But, the respondents No.1 and 2 have specifically denied the above averred facts and circumstances of the accident and they have taken specific defence that, the alleged accident has taken place solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-05-AL- 5729 and there was no fault on the part of the driver of car bearing Reg. No.KA-09-MC-5631. But, the respondents No.1 and 2 have failed to establish the said contentions. They have neither adduced any evidence, nor produced any document to establish the said contentions. Even, the respondents No.1 and 2 have not stepped into witness box to depose the said contentions on oath. In such circumstances, there is absolutely no evidence on record to 15 MVC No.6164/2023 show that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-05-AL-5729 himself and there was no fault on the part of the driver of offending car. On the other hand, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner clearly establishes that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-09-MC-5631 and dashing the same to oncoming auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-05-AL-5729 and due to said impact the said auto- rickshaw is extensively damaged. Though, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has cross-examined P.W.1 in length, nothing worth has been brought out from his mouth, which creates doubt on the veracity of his evidence or which goes to show that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-05-AL-5729 or there was any contributory negligence on his part in the cause of accident. 16 MVC No.6164/2023
14. Further, the Ex.P.3 spot mahazer also clearly speaks that, the said accident has taken place on the left side of 30 feet wide on Kanakapura-Malavalli NH-948 road, near Patel Kaliregowdanadoddi Village, Sathanooru Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, in between offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-09-MC-5631 and oncoming auto- rickshaw bearing No.KA-05-AL-5729. As per the Motor Vehicles Accident Report, which is marked as Ex.P.4, the accident is not caused due to any mechanical defects in the vehicles involved in the accident. When the accident has not taken place due to any mechanical defects in the vehicles involved in the accident and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-05-AL- 5729, then in the given facts and circumstances of the case, it can be presumed that the said accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-09-MC-5631. Further, the investigation officer in his Ex.P.6 final report/charge-sheet has clearly 17 MVC No.6164/2023 stated that, the alleged accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-09-MC-5631 and dashing the same to the auto- rickshaw bearing No.KA-05-AL-5729. Admittedly, the said final report/charge-sheet has not been challenged either by the owner or the driver of said vehicle. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the final report filed by the investigation officer and other police records, regarding the date, time and place of accident, involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car and damages caused to the auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-05-AL- 572 in the said accident.
15. The Ex.P.4 Motor Vehicle Accident Report clearly speaks that, the auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-05-AL-5729 is extensively damaged in the accident in question. As per the said report, the front shape, front wheel assembly and mudguard, suspension system wind screen glass and wiper, 18 MVC No.6164/2023 front both side rear view mirrors, tarpaulin, top hood and roofing, right and left side body, rear both side wheel mudguards, rear both side wheel assembly, steering system, seats, head light and indicators of the said auto- rickshaw are damaged. On the other hand, there is no rebuttal evidence placed on record by the respondents No.1 and 2 to show that, the said documents are false documents. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner, with respect to cause of accident and damage caused to auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-05-AL-5729.
16. Further, it is well settled principle of law that, in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as required to be done in a criminal trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parameshwari V/s Amir Chand and others, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 635, has clearly held that, "in a road accident 19 MVC No.6164/2023 claim cases the strict principle of proof in a criminal case are not required."
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bimla Devi and others V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 513, has clearly held that, "in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are merely required to establish their case on touch stone of preponderance of probability and the standard of proof on beyond reasonable doubt could not be applied."
18. Therefore, in the light of ratio laid down in the above cited decisions and for the above stated reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioner has successfully proved that, his autorickshaw bearing No.KA- 05-AL-5729 was damaged in a motor vehicle accident, occurred on 16-08-2023 at about 8.30 a.m., on Kanakapura- Malavalli NH-948 road, near Patel Kaliregowdanadoddi 20 MVC No.6164/2023 Village, Sathanooru Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of car bearing Reg. No. KA-09-MC-5631. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in Affirmative.
19. Issue No.2: While answering above issue this Court has come to conclusion that, the petitioner has successfully proved that, auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-05-AL-5729 was damaged in the road traffic accident, occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car bearing No.KA-09-MC-5631. Further, the Ex.P.4 Motor Vehicle Accident Report is clear evident that, the front shape, front wheel assembly and mudguard, suspension system wind screen glass and wiper, front both side rear view mirrors, tarpaulin, top hood and roofing, right and left side body, rear both side wheel mudguards, rear both side wheel assembly, steering system, seats, head light and indicators of the said auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-05-AL-5729 are damaged in the said accident. But, there is no single piece 21 MVC No.6164/2023 of document produced by the petitioner to establish that, as on the date of accident he was the registered owner of auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-05-AL-5729.
20. In order to claim compensation from the respondents, in respect of alleged damage caused to the auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-05-AL-5729, the initial burden on the petitioner was to prove his ownership over the said vehicle. But, the petitioner has failed to discharge the said burden. Except the self serving statements of petitioner in his examination-in-chief affidavit, there is absolutely no other corroborative oral or documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner to show that, as on the date of accident he was the owner of auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA- 05-AL-5729 involved in the accident. Further, he has not produced single piece of document to show that, he has spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards the repair cost of said auto- rickshaw. Even there are no specific pleadings or any evidence with respect to, when and where the said auto- 22 MVC No.6164/2023 rickshaw was got repaired. Further, he has not produced any document to show that, the said auto-rickshaw was used for transportation of passengers on hire basis. Admittedly, he has not produced any document pertaining to said auto-rickshaw, such as registration certificate, permit, fitness certificate, insurance copy and his driving licence, to establish that, as on the date of accident he was the owner of said auto-rickshaw and before accident he used to drive the said auto-rickshaw on hire basis and he was earning income out of it. In absence of documents or evidence, with respect to ownership of the petitioner over the auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-05-AL-5729, cost of repair and time consumed for repair, it is not possible to assess the actual damage sustained by the petitioner in the said road traffic accident. As such question of directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner, does not arise at all. Therefore, in such circumstances and for the above stated reasons, there is no other option before this 23 MVC No.6164/2023 Court, except to hold that, the petitioner has failed to prove his ownership over the auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-05-AL- 5729, as on the date of accident and as such he is not entitled for any compensation from the respondents. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 in Negative.
21. Issue No.3: In view of the above findings, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER The petition filed under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is dismissed with costs.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this the 6 th day of November, 2025) (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.24 MVC No.6164/2023
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
P.W.1: Chandra Babu S/o Gopalappa Documents marked on behalf of petitioner:
Ex.P.1: True copy of F.I.R. Ex.P.2: True copy of First Information Statement Ex.P.3: True copy of Spot Mahazar Ex.P.4: True copy of M.V.A. Report Ex.P.5: True copy of Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.6: True copy of Charge-sheet Ex.P.7: True copy of Notice under Sec.133 of M.V. Act Ex.P.8: True copy of Reply to Notice under Sec.133 of M.V. Act Ex.P.9: Notarized copy of Aadhar Card
Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
-Nil-
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
-Nil-
(Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.