Bangalore District Court
Santi Tamang vs Tata Aig Gen Ins Co Ltd on 6 September, 2025
SCCH-21 1 MVC No.6447/2023
KABC0B0156952023
IN THE COURT OF XVII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES & MEMBER, M.A.C.T,
MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (SCCH-21)
PRESENT: Vijaykumar S. Hiremath., L.LB.,
XVII ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small
Causes & Member, M.A.C.T., Bengaluru.
Dated this the 06th Day of September - 2025
M.V.C. No.6447/2023
Petitioner/s: 1. Smt. Santi Tamang
W/o Late Nima Tamang,
D/o Kamal Kumar Tamang,
Aged about 27 years.
2. Master Pratik Tamang
S/o Late Nima Tamang,
Aged about 02 years.
3. Sri. Guptha Singh Tamang
S/o Late Lal Bahadur Tamang,
Aged about 48 years.
4. Smt. Chandramaya
W/o Guptha Singh Tamang,
Aged about 45 years.
All are Residing at :-
Maohing Nepali Village,
Maohing Nepali, Kang Pokoi Sada,
Hills West Sub-Division,
Senapati, Manipur - 795129.
SCCH-21 2 MVC No.6447/2023
[Petitioner No.2 is minor represented
by his mother as a natural guardian
Smt. Santi Tamang].
(By Sri. T. Manjunatha, Adv.,)
Vs.
Respondent/s: 1. M/s TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Motor Claims Hub, No.69,
2nd Floor, J.P & Jambukeshwara Arcade,
Near ICICI Ist square, Millers Road,
Bangalore-560 052.
[Policy No. 6300733257 00 00
Valid from 25.07.2023 to 24.07.2024]
(By Sri. H. K. Ramamurthy, Adv.,)
2. Vikram. A
S/o Ambrish. R,
No.227, Sapthagiri Layout,
Ward No.23, Hosur Road,
Anekal Taluk, Bangalore-562106.
[Owner of Ashok Leyland bearing Reg. No.
KA-59-4308]
(Exparte)
Date of institution of the : 30.09.2023
petition
Nature of the Petition : U/Sec.166 of M. V. Act
Date of commencement of : 07.08.2024
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 06.09.2025
was pronounced
Duration of the Petition Year/s Month/s Day/s
01 11 07
SCCH-21 3 MVC No.6447/2023
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- from the respondents with regard to the death of Nima Tamang S/o. Gupta Singh Tamang in the road traffic accident that took place on 22.08.2023.
2. The brief facts of the petition are as follows:
It is the case of the petitioners that, on 22.08.2023 at about 09.15 p.m., the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-53-HR-7480 slowly, cautiously, observing the traffic rules proceeding on infront of Medplus, Medical Shop, Gunjuru, Bangalore, at that time a Ashok Layland Lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-59-4308 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life, without following any traffic rules dashed to the motorcycle from behind. Due to forced impact, deceased fell-
down and sustained grievous injuries on vital parts of the body. Immediately after the accident deceased was shifted to Vydehi Hospital, the duty doctor were examined and declared brough dead and after postmortem the petitioners shifted the dead body to their place and performed the last rites and SCCH-21 4 MVC No.6447/2023 obsequies ceremony and they have spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- towards funeral and obsequencies expenses.
On account of the sudden and sad demise of the deceased in the said accident, the petitioners have undergoing deep mental shock and mental agony and hardship.
Prior to the accident the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged about 21 years and he was working as Delivery Boy and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased, petitioner No.2 is the minor son of the deceased and petitioner No.3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased, so the petitioners have lost their family member.
The petitioners were solely depending upon the income of the deceased. The respondents are the insurer and owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.40,00,000/- with cost and interest to the petitioners.
Hence, prayed to allow the petition.
3. After the service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent. Hence, placed Exparte.
The respondent No.1 filed his written statement and denied the case of the petitioners as false and contended that the petition itself is not maintainable either on facts or law. SCCH-21 5 MVC No.6447/2023 Respondent No.1 admitted the issuance of policy to the offending vehicle and liability if any is subjected to the terms and conditions of the policy. Respondent No.1 denied the involvement of the insured vehicle in the alleged accident and submits that, the container lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-59- 4308 and its driver has been falsely implicated in the alleged accident. It is further submitted that, the driver of the respondent No.2 vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and also without permit. It is further submitted that, the alleged accident was only due to rash and negligence on the part of the deceased, who was riding motorcycle bearing No. KA-53-HR-7480 in a rash and negligent manner, without license, without wearing helmet in a zig-zag manner and colluded with unknown number vehicle. Further, respondent No.1 denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased. The petitioners colluding with the police filed the false case. By these reasons, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, my learned predecessor has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, on 22.08.2023 at about 09.15 p.m., accident took place infront of Medplus SCCH-21 6 MVC No.6447/2023 medical shop, Gunjuru, Bangalore due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-59-4308 as a result deceased has succumbed to the accidental injuries?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. What order or award?
5. In order order to prove the case of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 got examined as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to 18 and Investigation Officer by name Raghavendra is examined as PW.2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.19 to 22 and closed their side. On the other hand, Senior Manager of respondent No.1 Insurance Company is examined as RW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.R.1and Ex.R.2.
6. Heard the arguments on both the sides and perused the material placed on record. The counsel for respondent No.1 relied upon the following decision,
1. ACJ 2007 1928.
2. ILR 2000 KAR 1817.
3. ACJ 1994 1303.
SCCH-21 7 MVC No.6447/2023
7. My findings on the above issues as under:-
Issue No.1 ... In the affirmative, Issue No.2 ... Partly in the affirmative, Issue No.3 ... As per final order, for the following:
:REASONS:
8. ISSUE No.1: The petitioners contended that on 22.08.2023 at about 09.15 p.m. deceased Nima Tamang met with road traffic accident and died due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Ashok Lay Land Lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-59-4308. The burden is upon the petitioners to prove that, the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the Ashok Lay Land Lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-59- 4308.
9. The petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2 is the son and petitioner No.3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased Nima Tamang. The claimants/petitioners, in order to prove that, the occurrence of road traffic accident as contended by them in their claim petition has occurred on the date, time and place and in the manner as contended by them in their claim petition, got examined petitioner No.1 - the wife of the deceased as PW.1 and reiterated the petition averments and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 18. SCCH-21 8 MVC No.6447/2023 Ex.P.1 is the FIR, Ex.P.2 is the complaint, Ex.P.3 is the Charge-sheet, Ex.P.4 is the Death Intimation, Ex.P.5 is the Spot Mahazar, Ex.P.6 is the Sketch, Ex.P.7 is the IMV Report, Ex.P.8 is the Inquest Report, Ex.P.9 is the postmortem Report, Ex.P.10 is the Notice U/s 133 of M. V. Act, Ex.P.11 is the Reply Notice, Ex.P.12 is the FSL Report, Ex.P.13 is the Notarized copy of Aadhar card of deceased, Ex.P.14 to 17 are the copies of Aadhar card of petitioners and Ex.P.18 is the Bank account statement of deceased.
10. The certified copy of the First Information (First information statement/s complaint in common para-lace) lodged before the Whitefield Traffic Police has been marked as Ex.P.2. On receiving the First Information, the Station House Officer chose to register a case in Crime No. 277/2023. The said certified copy of First Information Report (F.I.R.) is marked as Ex.P.1.
11. Further in support of their case, petitioners examined Investigation officer as PW.2. PW.2 in his evidence depose that, he has received further investigation on 24.08.2023 in respect of Crime No. 277/2023. During the course of investigation on 23.08.2023 P.S.I as well as official by name Anand have traced the offending vehicle through SCCH-21 9 MVC No.6447/2023 CCTV, as per the said CCTV footage said Anand produced the Ley-land container lorry along with its driver. Thereafter, he has issued notice U/s 133 of M. V. Act and received the Reply from the owner of the said Container Lorry. Further he depose that, he received the PM Report and IMV Report and recorded the statements of eye-witnesses. During his evidence he produced CD along with certificate U/s 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act and he identified the offending vehicle in the video.
12. On the other hand, Senior Manager on behalf of the Insurance Company i.e., respondent No.2 examined as RW.1, wherein he depose that, Lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-59-4308 and its driver has been falsely implicated in the alleged accident at the instance of petitioners in connivance with the jurisdictional police. Further he depose that, after lapse of 04 days jurisdictional police have seized the insured vehicle and I.O has filed false charge sheet against the driver of the insured vehicle and got marked documents at Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2.
13. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that, the alleged accident is caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle and I.O. has filed SCCH-21 10 MVC No.6447/2023 charge-sheet against the driver of said offending vehicle and said vehicle is duly insured with respondent No.1. Hence, he prayed to allow the petition.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for insurance company argued that, petitioners have played fraud on this Court and misrepresented before the concerned authorities and have manipulated the records and implicated the Lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-59-4308. Further, he argued that, petitioner colluding with jurisdictional police have created false documents and petitioner failed to examine the complainant who is none other than the brother of the deceased. Further, he also argued that, petitioners have not examined any eye-witness to the accident, I.O has not traced the driver of the offending vehicle by using mobile tower location and in CCTV footage vehicle number not displayed properly. Hence, on these grounds he prayed to dismiss the case.
15. In view of above arguments, this Court perused the documents available on record as well as cross-examination. Ex.P.1 to 7, 10, 11, 21 and 22 are the only documents, which are to be scrutinized to arrive at conclusion- whether the accident was owing to the negligent manner of driving by the SCCH-21 11 MVC No.6447/2023 Lorry driver. After registering the First Information, held investigation and filed the Ex.P.3, Charge-Sheet against the driver of the Lorry U/s. 279 and 304A of IPC along with Sec.134(a&b) and 187 of M. V. Act. The Ex.P.7 i.e., certified copy of the IMV Report discloses that, the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle in question.
16. On perusal of FIR i.e., Ex.P.1, the accident occurred on 22.08.2023 and the FIR was lodged on the same day within 02 hours, clearly giving the date, time and the place where the accident occurred. It is also mentioned that, it was an unknown vehicle which came from behind in high speed and hit the vehicle of the deceased. Further, also it refer to the injuries suffered by the deceased. Further, it is also not disputed by the contesting respondent that, deceased died in the RTA. Immediately, after receiving first information report, Investigating Officer registered the crime and appointed one Anand to trace out the offending vehicle. Immediately, after next date the said Anand produced the offending vehicle along with its driver.
17. Learned counsel for respondent contended that, petitioner along with police have implicated insured vehicle. SCCH-21 12 MVC No.6447/2023 In this case, though contesting respondent has taken above contention but to prove the same he has not produced any evidence before the Court. But relied upon the evidence available on record. In the light of above contentions once again this Court perused the cross-examination of PW.1. On going through the cross-examination it reveals that, she is not the eye-witness to the accident in question. Further, on perusal of cross-examination of PW.2, who is Investigating Officer, it goes to show that, PSI conducted the panchanama in respect of seizer of CCTV footage. As per the CCTV footage, one Lorry container caused accident to the offending vehicle on 22.08.2023 at 09:08:30. In addition to that, I.O has issued notice to the owner of the offending vehicle as per Ex.P.10 U/s 133 of M. V. Act. Thereafter, the owner of the said vehicle admitting the accident and provide he particulars of the vehicle as well as driver. These things goes to show that, the said accident is caused from the offending vehicle.
18. Learned counsel for contesting respondent i.e., Insurance Company relied upon the Judgment reported in 2007 ACJ 1928 between Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Premalatha and others, on perusal of the facts of the said SCCH-21 13 MVC No.6447/2023 Judgment it reveals that, Tempo Trax collided with a Truck and registration number of Truck could not be noticed and during the Investigation the Truck could not be traced out. But in the present case, soon after the next date of accident I.O has traced the offending vehicle and also seized the said vehicle. Infact, owner of the offending vehicle also given Reply Notice U/s 133 of M. V. Act by admitting the accident and involvement of driver of the offending vehicle. As such, facts of the above case and facts of the case in hand are all together different. Accordingly, above Judgment is not helpful to the case of Insurance Company. In addition to above Judgment, learned counsel for Insurance Company also relied upon the Judgment reported in ILR 2000 KAR 1817 between KSRTC Vs. Lakshmi Bai, wherein the accident is not caused due to the rash and negligent act of the KSRTC Bus but claimants sustained injury while traveling in a bus, bus door glass broken due to stone through and glass pieces fallen in right eye and registration number of KSRTC Bus involved in the accident is given for the first time in the claim petition, that too after 03 months. But in the present case immediately after next date of the accident investigating officer seized the offending vehicle. In SCCH-21 14 MVC No.6447/2023 another decision reported in 1994 ACJ 1303 between Mathaji Bewa and others Vs. Hemanta Kumar Jena and another, wherein Hon'ble High Court of Orissa observed that, contents of charge-sheet cannot be treated as evidence in a claim proceedings and Tribunal must rely on the evidence lead before it. In the said case, charge-sheet filed against the offending vehicle stating that, deceased was traveling on the offending truck as a passenger but during the course of evidence claimants have given positive evidence that, deceased was a pedestrian and the Truck came and knocked him down. So, in view of above facts, Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, held as stated above. But admittedly in this case, apart from charge-sheet PW.1 and PW.2 adduced evidence before this Court about involvement of offending vehicle. As such, said Judgment is not helpful to the Insurance Company.
19. In view of above discussion in respect of facts of the case and in the light of observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as High Courts, claimants have discharged the initial onus. Contesting respondent insurance company had taken contention that, there was collusion between the claimants as well as police. But insurance SCCH-21 15 MVC No.6447/2023 company did not lodge any complaint of collusion and about involvement of the lorry container in an illegal manner. If insurance company had a case that, there was collusion between the claimants and police officials, it ought to discharge that burden. Admittedly, as per the evidence of RW.1, they have not taken any steps in this regard.
20. At this stage it is relevant to quote decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Hon'ble High Courts. In the decision reported in 2012 ACJ 2569 between Shalini and others Vs. Harbhajan and others, wherein it was held "merely non-mentioning number of the vehicle in the FIR its not sufficient until and unless evidence to show the involvement of the vehicle is produced and insurance company did not adduced any evidence creating doubt on the involvement of the offending vehicle". The principles laid down therein is squarely applicable to the case on hand.
21. In another decision reported in 2022 ACJ 2003 between Janabai and others Vs. ICICI Lombard General Ins. Co. Ltd., wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, there was dispute with regard to the involvement of the vehicle. In the above said decision the Supreme Court laid down that the owner of the vehicle has not filed any complaint SCCH-21 16 MVC No.6447/2023 regarding false implication of the vehicle then the version of the investigating officer has to be trusted. In present case also the respondent No.2 being the owner of the vehicle has not filed any complaint for false implication. As such, the version of I.O in the absence of any contra evidence has to be taken into consideration.
22. As discussed above, in the instant case on hand also soon after the accident i.e., within the 2 hours the FIR was lodged and there was no room for the claimants to plant a vehicle in such a short term. Moreover, in catena of decisions Hon'ble Apex Court held that, strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish a case on the test-stone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not be applied. In view of above principal this Tribunal opine that, petitioners have established their case that, it was the truck bearing Reg. No. KA-59-4308 which was involved in the accident with the motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-53-HR-7480 wherein the deceased was riding the said vehicle. As stated above, respondents have not produced any evidence before this SCCH-21 17 MVC No.6447/2023 court to show that, the accident is not caused due to the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, having regard to the above facts and circumstances, this court opine that, accident is caused solely due to negligence of driver of offending Bus bearing Reg. No. KA-51-D-1780. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
23. ISSUE No.2: This Issue is regarding dependency, quantum of compensation to be awarded to petitioners and who is liable to pay the same, which is answered under the following heads:
24. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY: To ascertain the actual loss of dependency, the age, income of deceased and the number of dependents of the deceased are to be taken into consideration. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are solely depending upon the income of the deceased and due to death of Nima Tamang, they have lost love and affection of the deceased.
25. The petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2 is the son, petitioner No.3 and 4 are the parents of deceased Nima Tamang. The deceased out of his income contributed to the income of family consisting of himself and petitioners herein. Further, these petitioners being legal representatives SCCH-21 18 MVC No.6447/2023 of the deceased can very well maintain petition. Hence, it is clear that, all the petitioners are depending upon the income of the deceased Nima Tamang. Hence, 1/4 of the income should be taken towards personal expenses of the deceased.
26. Considering judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Special leave petitioner (Civil No.25590/2014 dated:31.10.2016(National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others), in which it is observed that, "in case if the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation".
27. In a decision reported in 2018 ACJ 5 (Hem Raj Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., & Others), Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, there can not be distinction where there is evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guesswork, as such addition on account of future prospects is admissible where in the absence of proof of income.
SCCH-21 19 MVC No.6447/2023
28. The petitioners contended that, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 21 years and was working as Zomato Delivery Boy and he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The petitioners have produced the post mortem report of deceased Nima Tamang which is marked at Ex.P.9. From perusal of the Ex.P.9 age of the deceased is mentioned as 21 Years as on the date of accident. Hence, the age of the deceased is considered as 21 years as on the date of accident. The accident took place in the year 2023. But in order to prove the income of the deceased petitioners have not produced any single document before this Court to prove the income of the deceased. So, in the absence of any evidence in respect of the income of the petitioner, the petitioner might have monthly income at Rs.16,000/- as per the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka fixed notional income of the year 2023 at Rs.16,000/- per month for determination of income before Lok-Adalat for the Districts coming under the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru Bench. The accident is of the year is 2023. Hence, the income of the petitioner is considered as Rs.16,000/- p.m. as per above decision.
SCCH-21 20 MVC No.6447/2023
29. As per decision stated above, it is clear that, the Tribunal has to consider the future prospects on actual salary less tax and even for self employed or were engaged on fixed wages. Admittedly, the age of the deceased is 21 years. So 40% of future prospects is taken into consideration. Taking into consideration of the same, if 40% is added to the income of the deceased it would be Rs.16,000/- + 40% of Rs.16,000/- is Rs.6,400/- = Rs.22,400/- per month. There are four dependents. Hence, 1/4 has to be deducted towards personal expenses. So, 1/4 of Rs.22,400/- would be Rs.5,600/-. Income for consideration (Rs.22,400 - 5,600) is Rs.16,800/- per month. Therefore the annual income (Rs.16,800 x 12) is Rs.2,01,600/-. As such correct multiplier as per guidelines of Sarala Varma case would be "18". Thus the loss of dependency works out to (Rs.2,01,600/- x 18) is Rs.36,28,800/-.
30. TOWARDS TRANSPORTATION OF DEAD BODY, FUNERAL EXPENSES AND LOSS OF ESTATE: The petitioners have spent the amount towards shifting the dead body and performing funeral and obsequies ceremony. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment passed in Special Leave petitioner (Civil) No.25590/2014 dated:31-10-2017 (National SCCH-21 21 MVC No.6447/2023 Insurance Co., Ltd Vs. Pranaya Sethi and Others), wherein it is held that as far as conventional heads are concerned, the petitioners are entitled for funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- and under the head of loss of estate at Rs.15,000/-.
31. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM: The petitioner No.1 is the wife of deceased, petitioner No.2 is the son and petitioner No.3 and 4 are the parents of deceased, so they are entitled for consortium for loss of "protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training". Therefore, Rs.40,000/- each is awarded to the petitioners under the head of loss of consortium.
32. ESCALATION OF 10% ON AMOUNT AWARDED UNDER CONVENTIONAL HEADS:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court at para No.59.8 of Judgment passed in Pranaya Sethi and others has directed to enhance the amount to be awarded under conventional heads to an extent of 10% on every 03 years. Further more, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in a decision delivered on 07.07.2021 in MFA No.101723/2017 clubbed with MFA No.104014/2016 between Smt. Viday @ Vidyashree W/o Bandu @ Dattu Koli and others Vs. Sanju S/o Veerappa Koli SCCH-21 22 MVC No.6447/2023 and another at paragraph No.16 has awarded 10% of enhanced amount on total amount awarded under conventional heads. The Judgment in Pranya Sethi (referred supra) delivered on 31.10.2017, as such 06 years have lapsed. Thus the petitioners are entitled for 20% enhanced amount under the above conventional heads. While discussing above, this tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- under conventional heads and 20% of the same comes to Rs.38,000/-. Thus, petitioners are entitled for an amount of Rs.38,000/- under this head.
Considering the above facts and for the above reasons, the petitioners are entitled for compensation under the following heads:
1 Loss of dependency Rs.36,28,800/-
2 Loss of consortium Rs.1,60,000/-
3 Towards transportation of dead Rs. 15,000/-
body and funeral expenses 4 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
5 Escalation of 20% on Rs. 38,000/-
conventional heads Total Rs.38,56,800/-
Hence, this Tribunal feels to award just and proper compensation of Rs.38,56,800/- to the petitioners. SCCH-21 23 MVC No.6447/2023
33. LIABILITY: As discussed in Issue No.1, the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Ashok Ley-land bearing Reg. No. KA-59-4308 and the police have conducted due enquiry and filed charge sheet against the said driver of the offending vehicle punishable U/ s 279 and 338 of IPC. From perusal of the policy, the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No.1 for the period from 25.07.2023 to 24.07.2024. Admittedly, the accident in question took place on 22.08.2023. Hence, policy was in force at the time of accident. Hence, in view of above discussion, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. However, respondent No.1 being the insurer is liable to indemnify the respondent No.2 owner.
34. INTEREST: As far as awarding of interest on the compensation amount is concerned, I have relied In a decision in M.F.A. No.100090 of 2014 in between Vijay Ishwar Jadhav and others V/s The divisional Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd 2018 ACJ 5 (Hem Raj Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., & Others), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has awarded interest at the rate of 6%. Accordingly, ISSUE No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. SCCH-21 24 MVC No.6447/2023
35. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioners under Sec.166 of I. M. V Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are awarded with
compensation of Rs.38,56,800/- with interest @
6% p.a., from the date of petition till its
realization.
The respondent No.2 being owner of the vehicle involved in an accident is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the above compensation amount with interest thereon before Tribunal within two months from the date of this award.
After deposit of compensation amount, petitioners are entitled for apportionment in the ratio of 50:20:15:15 respectively.
After deposit of compensation amount awarded to petitioner No.1 60% of the amount shall be released in the name of petitioner No.1 and remaining 40% shall be deposited in the name of petitioner No.1 in any Nationalised or Schedule Bank for a period of 03 years on proper identification.
Out of the amount apportioned to petitioner No.2 entire amount shall be deposited in his name SCCH-21 25 MVC No.6447/2023 in any Nationalised or Schedule Bank till they attain the age of majority on proper identification.
Out of amount apportioned to petitioner No.3 and 4 entire amount shall be released in their names respectively on proper identification.
After deposit of compensation amount with interest thereon, disburse amount as mentioned above as per guidelines laid down by Hon'ble High Court in MFA No.2509/2019 (ECA) and as per General Circular No. 2/2019 dated 19.8.2019.
The petitioners are hereby directed to produce particulars of their Bank Account, with name of Bank, IFSC Code, Account Number with copy of First Page of Bank Pass Book which contains compulsorily photograph of petitioners, which is duly attested by concerned Bank. Further petitioners shall produce PAN Card/Aadhaar Card.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court on this the 06 th day of September, 2025) (VIJAYKUMAR S. HIREMATH) XVII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member MACT, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Santi Tamang
P.W.2 : Raghavendra
SCCH-21 26 MVC No.6447/2023
Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P.1 FIR Ex.P.2 Complaint Ex.P.3 Charge-sheet Ex.P.4 Death Intimation Ex.P.5 Spot Mahazar Ex.P.6 Sketch Ex.P.7 IMV Report Ex.P.8 Inquest Report Ex.P.9 Postmortem Report Ex.P.10 Notice U/s 133 of M. V. Act Ex.P.11 Reply Notice Ex.P.12 FSL Report Ex.P.13 Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of deceased Ex.P.14 - 17 Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of petitioners Ex.P.18 Bank Account statement of deceased Ex.P.19 & 20 Letters Ex.P.21 Certificate U/s 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.22 CD
Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents:
RW.1 : Girisha. M Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1 : Authorization Letter
Ex.R.2 : Copy of Policy
(VIJAYKUMAR S. HIREMATH)
XVII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes &
Member MACT, Mayo Hall Unit,
Bengaluru.