Bangalore District Court
Lata Nashipur vs Thanush on 24 October, 2025
SCCH-2 MVC.No.3397/2023
KABC020154922023
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.No. 3397/2023
Present : Sri. H.P. Mohan Kumar, B.Sc.,LL.B.,
VIth Addl. Judge, Court of Small
Causes and ACJM and MACT,
Bengaluru.
Dated on this 24th day of October, 2025.
Petitioners 1. Smt. Lata Nashipur
W/o Kalaveerappa @ Kalaveerappa
Nashipur,
Aged about 59 years.
2. Sri Shivalingesh Nashipur
S/o Kalaveerappa @ Kalaveerappa
Nashipur,
Aged about 35 years.
Both are residing at:
Udayanagar, Haveri town and taluk,
Haveri 581110.
SCCH-2 2 M.V.C.No.3397/2023
Presently R/at:
Flat No.002, Siddartha Solitaire
Phase -1, Sy No. 25/7, 8, 9, 10,
Khata No.42, Bertene Agrahara,
Hosa road, Doddanagamangala road,
Bangalore 560100.
(By Sri Suresha G A., Advocate)
-VERSUS-
Respondents 1. Sri Thanush
S/o Babu,
No.17, 2nd cross, Naganathapura,
Electronic city post, Electronic city,
Bangalore 560100.
(RC Owner of KTM Bike
bearing No. KA.01.JV.4474)
(By Sri. Naveen J, Advocate)
2. Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd.,
Golden Heights, 4th floor,
No.1/2, 59th C cross, 4th M block,
Rajajinagar, Bengaluru 560010.
(Policy No: OG-23-1701-1826-00036523
Valid from: 14.03.2023 to 13.03.2024)
(By Sri. Gururaj Salur, Advocate)
:: J U D G M E N T ::
Petitioners have filed Claim Petition U/Sec.166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death SCCH-2 3 M.V.C.No.3397/2023 of Kalaveerappa @ Kalaveerappa Nashipur, in the road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the petition are as under:
On 05.04.2023 at about 7.45 a.m., the Kalaveerappa was pedestrian on the extreme left side of Hosa road in order to cross the road, infront of Pralaksha hospital, at that time the rider of KTM Bike bearing Reg.No. KA.01.JV.4474 came from Naganathapura junction towards central jail in a rash or negligent manner and dashed against the Kalaveerappa and caused the accident. Due to the said impact, Kalaveerappa fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, the injured was shifted to Pralaksha hospital, Central Jail road, Hosa road, Bangalore.
But in spite of better treatment also the injured succumbed to the accidental injuries on the same day at about 9.40 a.m. Thereafter postmortem of the deceased was conducted at St. John's Medical College hospital, Bangalore and handed over the body to the petitioners. The petitioners have incurred more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards SCCH-2 4 M.V.C.No.3397/2023 transportation of dead body and to perform last rites of deceased.
Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy doing real estate business and thereby earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month and contributing the entire income for his family. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners have suffered financially.
The accident was occurred due to the rash or negligent riding of KTM Bike bearing Reg.No. KA.01.JV.4474 by its rider. Hence the Electronic City police have lodged the case against the rider of the said bike in Cr.No.134/2023 for the offence punishable under Sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC.
The 1st respondent is the RC owner and 2nd respondent is the insurer of offending vehicle. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. With these averments petitioners prays to allow the petition.
SCCH-2 5 M.V.C.No.3397/2023
3. After service of notice, both the respondents have appeared through their respective counsels. The 2nd respondent has filed written statement, but respondent No.1 has not filed written statement.
4. The written statement averments of the 2 nd respondent are as hereunder:
This respondent has admitted the issuance of policy in respect of KTM Bike bearing Reg.No. KA.01.JV.4474 and contended that the liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Inter-alia contended that , the rider of KTM Bike bearing Reg.No. KA.01.JV.4474 was not having valid driving license as on the date of accident. Further it has dined the cause and manner of the accident, age, income, avocation of the deceased . Further contended that there is no compliance of Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of MV capital. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive arbitrary and disproportionate. With these averments, this respondent has prayed to dismiss the petition.SCCH-2 6 M.V.C.No.3397/2023
5. On the basis of above pleadings, the predecessor in the office has framed the following:
:ISSUES:
1. Whether petitioners prove that Kalaveerappa @ Kalaveerappa Nashipur was died due to injuries sustained in the accident occurred on 05.04.2023 at about 7.45 a.m., on Hosa Road, infront of Pralaksha Hospital, Bengaluru due to rash or negligent riding of KTM Bike bearing Registration No-01-JV-4474 by its rider as stated in the petition?
2. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that, the rider of offending vehicle had not possessed valid D.L. at the time of accident?
3. Whether the petitioners prove the age and income of deceased?
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?SCCH-2 7 M.V.C.No.3397/2023
5. What order or award?
6. In order to prove their case, Petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16.
PW.1 was cross examined by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Per contra, the official of 2 nd respondent insurance company is examined as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.7. RW.1 was cross examined from the side of petitioners.
7. Heard the arguments from both side.
8. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has furnished the following decisions:
i) Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11757/2025 between Mahaveer Vs. The Branch Manager, United India Ins. Co.
Ltd.,
ii) Misc. First Appeal No. 7018/2023 (MV-D) C/w Misc. First Appeal No. 2658/2024 (MV-D) between M/s. TATA AIG Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Sri Manjunatha and others.
SCCH-2 8 M.V.C.No.3397/2023
iii) MFA No. 3297/2019 (MV-D) between Smt. Adilakshmammama and others Vs. Sri Raju R and another.
9. Perused the materials placed on record. The findings of the Tribunal to the above referred issues are as under:
Issue No.1 :- In the Affirmative Issue No.2 :- In the Affirmative Issue No.3 :- In the Partly Affirmative. Issue No.4 :- In the Partly Affirmative. Issue No.5 :- As per the final order for the following:
:REASONS:
10. ISSUE No.2 :- According to 2nd respondent, the rider of KTM Bike bearing Reg.No. KA.01.JV.4474 was not holding valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. In the instant case the petitioners have produced the notice issued by the investigating officer to the RC Owner of the offending vehicle and reply given by the owner, the said documents have been marked as Ex.P5 & Ex.P6. On perusal of Ex.P6 viz. reply issued to the notice U/Sec.133 of SCCH-2 9 M.V.C.No.3397/2023 MV Act, it is evident that the rider of the KTM Bike bearing Reg.No. KA.01.JV.4474 was not holding valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. Further on perusal of Ex.P12 i.e., charge sheet also reveals that the investigating officer has filed charge sheet against the rider of the KTM Bike bearing Reg.No. KA.01.JV.4474 U/Sec.3(1), 181 of MV Act for riding the motor cycle without holding driving license.
11. Further the 2nd respondent insurance company has examined its official as RW.1. RW.1 has also deposed in his evidence that, the rider of the KTM Bike bearing Reg.No. KA.01.JV.4474 was not holding valid and effective driving license. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the rider of KTM Bike bearing Reg.No. KA.01.JV.4474 was not having valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident.
Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered in the Affirmative.
12. ISSUE No.1 :- Before going to discuss it is worth to refer the decision reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530 between Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport SCCH-2 10 M.V.C.No.3397/2023 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 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, petitioners have to prove their case on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.
13. It is the case of the petitioners that, on 05.04.2023 at about 7.45 a.m., the Kalaveerappa was pedestrian on the extreme left side of Hosa road in order to cross the road, infront of Pralaksha hospital, at that time the rider of KTM Bike bearing Reg.No. KA.01.JV.4474 came from Naganathapura junction towards central jail in a rash or negligent manner and dashed against the Kalaveerappa and caused the accident. Due to the said impact, Kalaveerappa fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. SCCH-2 11 M.V.C.No.3397/2023 Immediately, the injured was shifted to Pralaksha hospital, Central Jail road, Hosa road, Bangalore. But in spite of better treatment also the injured succumbed to the accidental injuries on the same day at about 9.40 a.m. To prove their contention, petitioners have lead oral and documentary evidence.
14. The 1st petitioner, who is the wife of deceased Kalaveerappa @ Kalaveerappa Nashipur is examined as P.W.1 and filed affidavit by way of examination in chief and reiterated the averments made in the petition. Hence this court need not to recapitulate the same once again at this juncture. In order to prove Issue No.1, she has produced Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. Ex.P.1 is the true copy of complaint. Ex.P.2 is the true copy of FIR. Ex.P.3 is the true copy of spot mahazar. Ex.P.4 is the true copy of spot sketch. Ex.P.5 & Ex.P6 are the true copies of notice and reply to the notice U/Sec.133 of MV Act. Ex.P7 is the I.M.V. report. Ex.P.8 is the true copy of inquest report. Ex.P.9 is the true copy of postmortem report. Ex.P.10 is the true copy of SCCH-2 12 M.V.C.No.3397/2023 police intimation report. Ex.P11 is the true copy of death memo and Ex.P12 is the true copy of charge sheet.
15. According to the respondent No.2, the accident was occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased himself, who was pedestrian and crossing the road without observing the vehicle movement. There is no negligence on the part of the rider of KTM Bike bearing Reg.No. KA.01.JV.4474 for the cause of accident. In order to substantiate the same, respondent No.2 has examined its official as RW.1. Further, to prove the alleged negligence on the part of deceased, the Insurance Company has cross-examined P.W.1 in detail. Nothing has been elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 to establish that the accident was took place only on the negligence of deceased. Hence, the 2nd respondent has failed to establish the negligence on the part of deceased.
16. Further, on careful perusal of Ex.P.2, it appears to this Tribunal that, on the basis of complaint as per Ex.P1, the police have registered the case against the rider of the KTM Bike bearing Reg.No. KA.01.JV.4474 in Cr No. SCCH-2 13 M.V.C.No.3397/2023 134/2023. Further, the police have conducted spot mahazar and spot sketch as per Ex.P3 & Ex.P4. Thereafter, after completing investigation the police have submitted Charge sheet as per Ex.P.12 against the rider of the KTM Bike bearing Reg.No. KA.01.JV.4474 for the offences punishable U/Sec.279, 337 and 304(a) of IPC.
17. At this juncture 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 burden shifts on him to prove the same".
18. At the cost of repetition, charge sheet has been filed against the rider of KTM Bike bearing Reg.No. KA.01.JV.4474. Therefore, the above referred decision is aptly applicable to the case on hand. Further on perusal of Ex.P8 & Ex.P9 it is evident that the deceased Kalaveerappa SCCH-2 14 M.V.C.No.3397/2023 Nashipur has died due to the skull fracture and intracranial haemorrhage due to the head injury sustained by him in the alleged accident. It is manifest that, the materials placed on record by the petitioners are sufficient to believe that, the accident took place due to rash or negligent riding of the rider of the KTM Bike bearing Reg.No. KA.01.JV.4474. Further on perusal of Ex.P9 viz. PM report, it is evident that the deceased has died due to the scull fracture and intra cranial hemorrhage as a result of head injury sustained in the alleged accident.
19. At the cost of repetition, the contents of complaint and charge sheet clearly reveals that when the deceased was pedestrian and crossing the road, the rider of KTM Bike bearing Reg.No. KA.01.JV.4474 ridden the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and caused the accident. The evidence placed on record clearly reveals that the rider of KTM Bike bearing Reg.No. KA.01.JV.4474 has caused the accident. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
SCCH-2 15 M.V.C.No.3397/2023
20. ISSUE No.3:- This issue is with regard to age and income of the deceased Kalaveerappa @ Kalaveerappa Nashipur. According to petitioners, the deceased was aged about 72 years at the time of his death. In the instant case, the respondent has disputed the age of the deceased. In order to substantiate the same, P.W.1 has produced Ex.P.14, the notarized copy of Aadhaar card of deceased. On careful perusal of this document, which reveals that, the year of birth of the deceased as 1951. The accident was occurred on 05.04.2023. Therefore, age of the deceased is considered as 72 years at the time of accident.
21. Now, the next aspect is with respect to income of deceased. According to the petitioners, the deceased was doing real estate business and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Per- contra, the respondent has denied the profession and income of deceased. To substantiate his income the petitioners have not placed any documentary evidence.
22. At this juncture, it is worth to rely on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka decided in M.F.A. SCCH-2 16 M.V.C.No.3397/2023 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".
23. In the absence of reliable document and supportive evidence, the notional income of the petitioner is to be considered by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka referred to above. As per the notional income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority for the accident in the year 2022 is Rs.15,500/- per month. It is pertinent to note that, the accident took place on 05.04.2023. SCCH-2 17 M.V.C.No.3397/2023 Hence, the notional income of the petitioner is considered as Rs.16,000/- per month by applying the method adopted by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority. Accordingly Issue No.3 is answered in the partly affirmative.
24. Issue No.4 : This issue is with regard to entitlement of relief. According to the petition averments, petitioner No.1 is the wife of deceased and petitioner Nos.2 is the major son of deceased. The 1st petitioner has lost her husband and petitioner No.2 has lost his loving father. 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 gratuitous service dependency, physical dependency, emotional dependency and psychological dependency so on SCCH-2 18 M.V.C.No.3397/2023 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 & 2 are considered as dependents of deceased.
25. Already this Tribunal has observed that, the age of deceased was 72 years as on the date of accident . 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 prospect 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%".
"If the deceased between 40 to 50 years age, future prospects is 25%".SCCH-2 19 M.V.C.No.3397/2023
"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".
26. Admittedly, the deceased is not a permanent job holder and he is not a fixed salary person. The deceased was aged about 72 years and therefore, no additional income is added to the income towards future prospects. So, monthly income of deceased is taken at Rs.16,000/-, which would meet the ends of justice.
27. The 1st petitioner is the wife and 2 nd petitioner is the major son of deceased. Already this tribunal has observed that, petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are the dependents of the deceased. At this juncture it is worth to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2020(11) SCC 356 between National Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Birender & Ors., Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "Major married and earning sons of the deceased, being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and the Tribunal must consider the SCCH-2 20 M.V.C.No.3397/2023 application, irrespective of whether the representatives are fully dependent on the deceased or not". Further the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex court held in M.F.A.No.102868 of 2014 (M.V.D.), between Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Gangappa Saunshi and Others, 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 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 & 2 are considered as dependents of deceased. Keeping in view of the 2 dependents of deceased in the case on hand, 1/ 3rd of the amount is to be deducted from total income towards his personal expenses. Therefore, by applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarala Verma case, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased has to SCCH-2 21 M.V.C.No.3397/2023 be deducted towards his personal living expenses. The same comes to Rs.16,000 - Rs.5,333/- = Rs.10,667/-. Then total income of the deceased per annum comes to Rs.1,28,004/- (Rs.10,667 x 12 = 1,28,004/-).
28. The deceased was 72 years old at the time of death, the multiplier 5 is applied, which is appropriate to the age of the deceased. Then the loss of dependency is Rs.1,28,004/- X 5 = Rs.6,40,020/-. Therefore, this Tribunal deems it just and reasonable to grant compensation of Rs.6,40,020/- under the head of loss of dependency.
29. 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 substantial amount towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. In order to substantiate the same, they have not produced any documents.
SCCH-2 22 M.V.C.No.3397/2023
30. Now the question before this Tribunal is whether petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are also entitled for consortium or not? Admittedly, the 1st petitioner is the wife and she is entitled for spousal consortium and petitioner No.2 is the major son of the deceased. At this juncture, it is worth to rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2018 (1) 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 filial consortium. Therefore, the 1st petitioner is entitled for Rs.48,400/- under the head of spousal consortium and petitioner No.2 is entitled for Rs.48,400/- under the head of filial consortium. Further, Rs.18,150/- is awarded for funeral expenses and also Rs.18,150/- is awarded towards loss of estate.
31. Medical Expenses:- According to the petitioners, they have incurred some amount towards treatment, conveyance and nourishment expenses. In order to substantiate the incurring of medical expenses, the petitioners have produced medical bills SCCH-2 23 M.V.C.No.3397/2023 marked as Ex.P.13 amounting to Rs.19,220/-. This Tribunal has carefully perused the medical bills. Apart from that, there is no evidence from the side of respondents to disbelieve the medical bills. After careful perusal of the medical bills, this Tribunal is of the opinion that, petitioner is entitled for Rs.19,220/- towards medical expenses.
32. The details of compensation amount is as under:
S.No. Heads Rs.
1. Towards loss of Rs. 6,40,020/-
Dependency
2. Towards spousal Rs. 96,800/-
and filial
consortium
3. Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/-
4. Funeral expense Rs. 18,150/-
5. Medical expenses Rs. 19,220/-
Total Rs. 7,92,340/-
Hence, petitioners are entitled for just and reasonable amount of Rs. 7,92,340/-
33. Regarding liability and interest.
Driving License:- According to respondent No.2, the rider of Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No. KA.01.JV.4474 had no SCCH-2 24 M.V.C.No.3397/2023 valid driving license to ride the said vehicle and hence violated the terms and conditions of the policy by riding the said vehicle without having valid driving license. Further contention of the 2nd respondent is that, after due investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet against the rider of the offending vehicle under Sec.3(1) and 181 of M.V. Act. The learned counsel for 2 nd respondent vehemently argued that the accident occurred on 05.04.2023. As on the date of accident amendment Motor Vehicles Act was in force. Moreover the rider of offending vehicle had no DL. As such 2 nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation.
34. Now the question before this Tribunal is whether the rider of the offending vehicle was having valid DL or not?. In this connection, it is worth to take Ex.P.6 and Ex.P12 for discussion. A careful perusal of these documents, it is evident that the rider of the Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No. KA.01.JV.4474 was not having valid driving license and the police have filed the charge sheet against the said rider for the offence punishable under Sec.279, 337 SCCH-2 25 M.V.C.No.3397/2023 and 304(a) of I.P.C. and also Sec.3(1) and 181 of M.V.Act. Further, the charge sheet discloses that, Prashanth S has been arrayed as an accused. Further, charge sheet reveals that, the said Prashanth S ridden the offending vehicle without having valid D.L. Therefore, it is crystal clear that, respondent No.2 has established that, the respondent No.1 has allowed the unauthorized person to ride the vehicle. Moreover respondent No.1, who is the R.C. owner of the above vehicle has not contested the case and she has given reply to the notice issued by the police as per Ex.P6, wherein she has clearly stated that there was no DL to the rider. Hence, this Tribunal come to conclusion that, at the time of accident, the rider of Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No. KA.01.JV.4474 had no valid and effective D.L. to ride the said vehicle. Besides the above referred aspects the accident occurred subsequent to the amendment. Hence, insurance company cannot be fastened with liability of pay and recovery. Per contra, 1st respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
SCCH-2 26 M.V.C.No.3397/2023
Interest: In view of the decision reported in MFA NO:
30131-2019 dtd, 12.5.2020 and M.F.A.No.100090/2014 C/w M.F.A.No.25107/2013 between Vijay Ishwar Jadhav and Others Vs. Ulrich Belchior Fernandes and Another, rate of interest on the compensation amount is awarded at 6% p.a. from the date of petition. Accordingly, Issue No.4 is answered in the Partly Affirmative.
35. ISSUE No.5:- 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. 7,92,340/- (Rupees Seven lakhs ninety two thousand three hundred and forty 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.SCCH-2 27 M.V.C.No.3397/2023
Respondent No.1 being owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners and directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded to the petitioners in the Tribunal within 2 months from the date of this judgment.
The respondent No.2 insurance company is absolved from the liability to indemnify the insured.
Draw award accordingly.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
: APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION :
On deposit of compensation amount, Petitioner No.1 is entitled for 80% and petitioner No.2 is entitled for 20% with interest.
50% of share of petitioner No.1 with interest is to be paid to her through 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 SCCH-2 28 M.V.C.No.3397/2023 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 their deposit amount from time to time.
Entire amount with interest is to be paid to petitioner No.2 through E-payment on proper identification as per rules and after verifying the stay order from the Hon'ble Appellate Court.
(Dictated to Stenographer on laptop and typed by her, revised and corrected by me, and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 24th day of October 2025) (H.P. Mohan Kumar) VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, and ACJM, MACT, Bengaluru : ANNEXURE :
List of witnesses examined for petitioners:
P.W.1 : Smt. Lata Nashipur.SCCH-2 29 M.V.C.No.3397/2023
List of exhibited documents marked for petitioners:
Ex.P-1 : True copy of complaint. Ex.P-2 : True copy of FIR. Ex.P-3 : True copy of spot mahazar. Ex.P-4 : True copy of spot sketch.
Ex.P-5& 6 : True copies of notice and reply to the notice U/Sec.133 of M V Act.
Ex.P-7 : True copy of M.V.A. Report.
Ex.P-8 : True copy of inquest report.
Ex.P-9 : True copy of PM report.
Ex.P-10 : True copy of police intimation.
Ex.P-11 : True copy of death memo.
Ex.P-12 : True copy of charge sheet.
Ex.P-13 : Medical bills.
Ex.P-14 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card pertaining to
deceased.
Ex.P-15 & : Notarized copies of Aadhaar cards pertaining to Ex.P-16 petitioners.
List of witnesses examined for the Respondents:
RW.1 : Ruchitha. SCCH-2 30 M.V.C.No.3397/2023 List of exhibited documents marked for the Respondents: Ex.R1 : Authorization letter. Ex.R2 : True copy of policy. Ex.R3 & : True copies of notice and reply to the notice Ex.R4 U/Sec.133 of M V Act. Ex.R5 : Office copy of notice sent to the 1st respondent. Ex.R6 : Returned RPAD cover. Ex.R7 : Returned notice. Digitally signed by H HP P MOHANKUMAR MOHANKUMAR Date: 2025.10.31 15:58:29 +0530 (H.P. Mohan Kumar) VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, and ACJM, MACT, Bengaluru