Bangalore District Court
Chandrika .V vs Lakshminarayana on 20 January, 2026
SCCH-26 M.V.C.2728/2022
KABC020154742022
BEFORE THE COURT OF XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AND ACJM (SCCH-26)
AT :BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF JANUARY 2026
PRESENT : SRI. APPASAB NAIK,
B.A.L.L.B.(Spl)
XXIV ADDL. SCJ & ACJM
& MEMBER - MACT
BENGALURU.
M.V.C.No.2728 OF 2022
PETITIONERS 1. Chandrika V.,
D/o Virabhadrayya,
W/o Yogesh K.R.,
Aged 27 years,
No.830/4, Narasimhareddy
Building, 2nd Cross,
Behind Widia,
Muneshwaranagar,Nagasandra,
Bengaluru-560 073.
2. K.C. Ramakrishnappa,
S/o Chikka Rangappa,
Aged about 61 years,
Karpenahalli (V & P),
Dodderi Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk,
Tumkur District.
(By Sri. T. Mohan, Advocate)
SCCH-26 2 MVC.2728/2022
- Vs -
RESPONDENTS 1. Lakshminarayana,
S/o Thimmanarasimhayya,
Baradi, Mandigere (P),
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural-562 123.
(Owner of vehicle bearing
Reg.No.KA-52-A-4302).
(By Sri. Vijaykumar V., Advocate)
2. The Manager,
ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins.Co.Ltd.,
9th Floor, The Estate,
121, Dickenson Road,
M.G. Road,
Bengaluru-560 042.
(Policy
No.3003/230823380/00/B00
(By Sri. Raghavendra Bhat, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed under the provisions of Sec.166 of M.V Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of Sri. Yogeesh K.R. caused in a Road Traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case are as under:
On 19.04.2022 at about 10.50 to 10.55 a.m., Yogeesh K.R., was travelling on his two wheeler bearing Reg,No.KA-SCCH-26 3 MVC.2728/2022
04-HJ-0761 from Bengaluru towards Madugiri and he reached Bengaluru-Tumkur NH-48 road, near Jas Toll, Opposite Delkur Factory, Nelamangala, at that time the Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-52-A-4302 came from the same road being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, endangering to human life and dashed against back side of the two wheeler in which Yogeesh was proceeding. Due to said accident Yogeesh K.R., was died on the spot. Immediately after the accident, dead body of Yogeesh K.R., was shifted to Government Hospital, Nelamangala, after postmortem the petitioners have shifted the dead body to their native place and performed final rites by spending Rs.1,00,000/-.
3. The 1st petitioner is the wife and 2 nd petitioner is the father of deceased Yogeesh K.R. At the time of accident Yogeesh K.R. was working as an operator at L.M. Wind Power India Pvt. Ltd., at Nidavanda and he was drawing salary of Rs.65,000/- per month. Due to sudden death of deceased his family members are suffering from loss of SCCH-26 4 MVC.2728/2022 dependence, loss of love and affection and mental agony. The Nelamangala Traffic police have registered the case in Cr.No.169/2022 under Sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC against the drive of the offending vehicle. Hence, the petitioners have prayed to award compensation of Rs.1,50,00,000/- from the respondents.
4. The notice of the petition has been duly served to respondents Nos.1 and 2. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have appeared before the Tribunal and filed separate written statement.
5. The 1st respondent has contended that, the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. This respondent has admitted his ownership with respect to vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-52-A-4302 and contented that, the said vehicle having valid permit, valid insurance policy. This respondent has denied the date, time and place of accident, rash and negligent driving of Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-52-A- 4302 and death of deceased Yogeesh K.S. due to cause of accident. It is contended that, the driver of the offending SCCH-26 5 MVC.2728/2022 Lorry was drove the same by following the traffic rules and regulations and he never drove his lorry rashly and negligently. The deceased himself drove his bike negligently, without following the traffic rules and he himself caused the accident. It is denied the occupation, income of the deceased and amount spent by the petitioners towards last rites of deceased. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. The Respondent No.2 has contended that, the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. This respondent has admitted the issuance of insurance policy with respect to vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-52-A-4302 and contended that, the liability of this respondent if any is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It is contended that, the driver of the offending vehicle has no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The investigating officer after conducting investigation filed the charge sheet against Mr. Krishnappa under Sec.181 of M.V. Act, which proves that, the driver of offending vehicle was drove the vehicle without valid driving license. The SCCH-26 6 MVC.2728/2022 offending vehicle was used in a public place without having valid permit and fitness certificate. Hence, there is clear violation of policy conditions by the owner of offending vehicle. Further contended that, there is no compliance of Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of M.V. Act. It has denied the involvement of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-52-A-4302 in the alleged accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased, rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. It is contended that, the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-52-A-4302 is not involved in the accident and it was intentionally implicated in collusion with the driver, owner and other authorities to get the unlawful benefits from the insurance company. The deceased himself was the main architect for the cause of accident. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and exorbitant. Hence, it has prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues has been framed :
SCCH-26 7 MVC.2728/2022
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal heirs of deceased?
2. Whether the petitioners' prove that, on 19.04.2022 at about 10.50 to 10.55 am, the deceased Yogesh K.R., was proceeding in his motor cycle bearing No.KA-04-HJ-0761 from Bengaluru towards Madugiri and when he reached near Jas Toll, Delkur Factory, Nelamangala, at that time Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-
52-A-4302 being driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner came from rear side and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased, as a result the deceased fell on the ground, sustained injuries and died on the spot, as mentioned in claim petition?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed in the petition? If so, from which respondent?
3. What Order or Award?
8. In order to prove their case, the 1st petitioner herself examined as PW.1 and got marked 13 documents as per SCCH-26 8 MVC.2728/2022 Ex.P.1 to 13. The petitioners have also examined one witness as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P.14 to Ex.P.25 through P.W.2. The 1st respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and got marked three documents as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 and Ex.R.4 and Ex.R.5 were marked through cross- examination of R.W.1 by way of confrontation by the counsel for respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 has examined one witness as R.W.2 and got marked 2 documents as per Ex.R.6 and Ex.R.7.
9. Heard the arguments from both sides. Leaned counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted written argument. Perused the entire materials placed on records.
10. My answers to the above issues are as follows :-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.3 : In the Partly Affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per final order
for the following :
REASONS
11. ISSUE No.1:- PW.1 has produced Aadhaar card of deceased at Ex.P.9, Aadhaar card of petitioner No.1 at SCCH-26 9 MVC.2728/2022 Ex.P.10, Aadhaar Card of petitioner No.2 at Ex.P.11 and family tree at Ex.P.12. From these documents it is clear that petitioner No.1 is wife and petitioner No.2 is the father of deceased Yogeesh K.R. Further it is clear that Petitioners No.1 and 2 are the legal heirs. Hence, petitioners No.1 and 2 are considered as dependents on the income of deceased. Therefore, they are considered as legal heirs of deceased and they are entitled for compensation due to death of deceased Yogeesh K.R. Accordingly Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
12. ISSUE No.2:- It is the case of petitioners that, on 19.04.2022 at about 10.50 to 10.55 a.m., deceased Yogeesh K.R., was travelling on his two wheeler bearing Reg,No.KA- 04-HJ-0761 and when he reached Bengaluru-Tumkur NH- 48 road, near Jas Toll, Opposite Delkur Factory, Nelamangala, one Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-52-A- 4302 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against back side of the two wheeler in which Yogeesh was proceeding. Due to SCCH-26 10 MVC.2728/2022 said accident Yogeesh K.R., was died on the spot. In order to prove their case, petitioner No.1 has examined herself as PW.1. She has filed affidavit in lieu of her chief examination and re-iterated the entire petition averments. She has got marked 13 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.13.
13. On the other hand, the contention of respondent No.1 is that, the driver of the offending Lorry was drove the same by following the traffic rules and regulations and he never drove his lorry rashly and negligently. The deceased himself drove his bike negligently and he himself caused the accident. The 2nd respondent has taken a specific contention that, the deceased himself was the main architect for the cause of accident, the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-52-A-4302 was not involved in the accident and it was intentionally implicated by colluding with the driver, owner and other authorities to get unlawful benefits from the insurance company. Hence the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation.
SCCH-26 11 MVC.2728/2022
14. Now, the burden is on the petitioners to prove the actionable negligence on the part of driver of the offending Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-52-A-4302. From the evidence on record it can be seen that after receipt of complaint as per Ex.P.2, Nelamangala police have registered the case as per Ex.P.1 FIR in Crime No.169/2022 against the driver of Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-52-A-4302 for the offenses punishable U/s.279 and 304(A) of IPC and also Sec.187 of M.V. Act. The police have conducted mahazar and submitted the vehicle seizure mahazar as per Ex.P.3. Ex.P.4 is the IMV report which shows that, the cause of accident was not due to any mechanical defects of above said vehicle. Ex.P.5 is the rough sketch, which shows that, the police have drawn the sketch on the spot of accident. Ex.P.6 is the inquest panchanama. Ex.P.7 is the postmortem report of the deceased and as per this document, the cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of RTA and injury sustained to vital organs such as brain. After due investigation the police SCCH-26 12 MVC.2728/2022 have filed charge-sheet against the driver of the above said Tipper Lorry as per Ex.P.8. Though the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross examined of PW.1 in detail, but he has failed to elicit anything to disbelieve her version.
15. In order to prove his defence, the 1st respondent examined himself as R.W.1. R.W.1 has filed affidavit by way of examination in chief, wherein he has reiterated the written statement averments. He has produced three documents as per Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3. Ex.R.1 is the original RC Card. Ex.R.2 is the certificate of fitness. Ex.R.3 is the insurance policy. Ex.R.4, the notice issued by the police U/Sec.133 of M.V. Act and Ex.R.5, reply to the said notice are marked by way of confrontation through cross- examination of R.W.1. The 2nd respondent has examined its Legal Manager namely Vinay Prasad as R.W.2. R.W.2 has filed affidavit by way of examination in chief and reiterated the written statement averments. He has produced two documents, which are marked as Ex.R.6 and Ex.R.7. R.W.6 SCCH-26 13 MVC.2728/2022 is the authorization letter and Ex.R.7 is the Insurance Policy.
16. In order to prove their defense about negligence aspect, respondent No.1 and 2 have not produced any documents. Further R.W.1 has admitted that, the investigating officer after conducting investigation has filed the charge sheet against the driver of offending and he has not challenged the charge sheet before any competent authority. With these backdrops, it cannot be considered that, the alleged accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-52-A-4302 by its driver.
17. Even in the examination of RW1 & RW2, respondent has not placed any supportive and reliable documents for consideration to believe its defenses against the case of the petitioners. The respondent No.1 and 2 have not made any effort to examine either the driver of the offending vehicle or any independent eye witness to prove SCCH-26 14 MVC.2728/2022 their defence. Added to this, the respondents have not challenged the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. Apart from this, PW1 was subjected for cross-examination, but nothing has been elicited from her mouth to believe the defense taken by the respondents about the denial of allegation made against the driver of the offending vehicle.
18. In the instant case, charge sheet clearly reveals that Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-52-A-4302 was involved in the accident. Hence, I am of the opinion that the respondent No.1 and 2 have failed to establish his contention that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased and the offending Tipper Lorry is not involved the accident and not on the part of the driver of the Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-52-A-4302. Hence, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 holds no water.
SCCH-26 15 MVC.2728/2022
19. Therefore, there is nothing on record to show that the charge-sheet filed by the police is collusive or defective and the evidence of PW-1 corroborates with the documents produced by her. There is nothing elicited to disprove the negligence on the part of the driver of the Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-52-A-4302. Moreover, it is settled law that the term "rashness and negligence" has to be construed lightly while deciding a petition for claim of compensation under the MV Act as compared to the word "rashness and negligence" as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in M.V.Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one. Therefore, based on the above discussion, I hold that the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-52-A-4302 is proved. As such, I answer issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
20. ISSUE No.3: As already discussed in Issue No.1, Petitioner No.1 and 2 are the dependents of the deceased Yogeesh K.R. and they are entitled for compensation. SCCH-26 16 MVC.2728/2022
21. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:- PW.1 has produced the notarized copy of Aadhaar card of deceased Yogeesh K.R. at Ex.P.9. As per this document, the date of birth of deceased is mentioned as 10.06.1986. The accident was occurred on 19.04.2022. Therefore, as on the date of accident the deceased was 36 years. As per the principles laid down by their Lordships in 2009 ACJ 1298 (Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corporation), the multiplier applicable to the present case is '15'.
22. According to PW.1, her deceased husband was working as an Operator at L.M. Wind Power India Pvt. Ltd., at Nidavanda and he was drawing salary of Rs.65,000/- per month. In order to prove her contention, P.W.1 has produced Ex.P.13, the bank statement of deceased for the period 01.10.2021 to 01.05.2022.
23. In order to prove the avocation and income of deceased, the petitioners have examined one witness namely Shivakumar N., Assistant HR., L.M. Wind Power Blades Pvt. Ltd., as P.W.2. P.W.2 has filed affidavit evidence SCCH-26 17 MVC.2728/2022 by way of examination-in-chief, wherein he has stated that, Yogesh K.R., was appointed in their company on 16.012.2010 as an operator and he was drawing salary of Rs.68,170/- per month along with increments every year and he was a permanent employee. In support of his evidence, P.W.2 has produced 12 documents, which are marked as Ex.P.14 to Ex.P.25. Ex.P.14 is the authorization letter and Ex.P.15 is the notarized copy of I.D. card pertaining to P.W.2. Ex.P.16 is the appointment letter and it shows that, the deceased Yageesh K.R., was selected as a Trainee on 16.12.2010. Ex.P.17 is the letter of regularization of service and it shows that, the service of deceased was regularized as an Associate on 01.10.2013. Ex.P.18 is the confirmation of appointment letter and it shows that, the deceased Yogeesh K.R. was working as an Associate at LM Wind Power Blades (India) Pvt. Ltd., and his probationary period was confirmed from 01.04.2014. Ex.P.19 to Ex.P.21 are the pay slips for the month of February-2022 to March-2022 and April-2022. Ex.P.22 is SCCH-26 18 MVC.2728/2022 the muster roll from 01.02.022 to 30.04.2022. Ex.P.23 is the salary transfer details. Ex.P.24 is the true copy of incorporation certificate. Ex.P.25 is the true copy of licence.
24. Ex.P.19 to Ex.P.21 are the pay slips for the month of February-2022 to March-2022 and April-2022. On perusal of the pay slips, it can be inferred that, the deceased was drawing salary which includes basic, fixed DA, variable DA, house rent allowance, special allowance and washing allowance on every month, but the shift allowance, over time allowance and bonus are various from month to month depending on his work. Hence, it cannot be considered that, the shift allowing, over time allowance and bonus as fixed salary of deceased. As per Ex.P.21, the pay slip for the month of April--2022 shows that, the deceased was drawing gross salary of Rs.97,294/- i.e., as on the month of death of deceased, which includes bonus, shift allowance, over time allowance and attendance bonus. After deducting the bonus, shift allowance, over time allowance and attendance bonus the gross salary of deceased comes to Rs.67,670/- SCCH-26 19 MVC.2728/2022 per month. Out of the gross salary, after deducting Rs.2,132/- towards income tax and Rs.200/- towards professional tax, the gross salary of deceased comes to Rs.65,338/- per month. Accordingly the deceased was drawing net salary of Rs.65,338/- per month and Rs.7,84,056/- per annum (Rs.65,338 X 12).
25. As the deceased was 36 years as on the date of accident and same is considered as age of the deceased and proper multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 15. As the age of the deceased is below 40 years and the deceased was having permanent job, hence 50% future prospects have to be added as per Pranay Sethi case. Then the monthly income would works out to Rs.98,007/- (Rs.65,338 + Rs.32,669/-). As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, deceased was married and two persons are dependents, hence 1/3rd of the income to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses and then the annual income would comes around (Rs.98,007/- (-) SCCH-26 20 MVC.2728/2022 Rs.32,669/-) ₹.65,338/- x 12 = ₹.7,84,056/- and by applying 15 multiplier, the loss of dependency would be ₹.1,17,60,840/-.
26. CONSORTIUM: Further, as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited V/s. Pranay Sethi and Others, amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years under the following conventional heads. As such, Petitioner No.1 is entitled to Rs.48,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,000/- towards Funeral expenses.
27. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others (Civil Appeal No.9581/2018D.D.18.09/2018) the petitioner No.2 has lost his son, hence awarded Rs.48,000/- under the head of loss of filial consortium.
28. In all the Tribunal has awarded total compensation to the petitioners under the following heads: SCCH-26 21 MVC.2728/2022
Sl. Nature of Compensation Amount
No
1. Loss of dependency ₹. 1,17,60,840/-
2. Loss of spousal ₹. 48,000/-
consortium to petitioner
No.1
4. Loss of parental ₹. 48,000/-
consortium to petitioner
No.2
5. Loss to estate ₹. 18,000/-
6. Transportation of dead ₹. 18,000/-
body and Funeral
Expenses
Total ₹.1,18,92,840/-
Therefore as per above heads, the petitioners are entitled the compensation of Rs.1,18,92,840/-.
29. REGARDING INTEREST & LIABILITY: Having regard to the nature of the claim and current bank rate of interest, this Tribunal is of the view that if interest at the rate of 6% per annum is awarded it would meet the ends of justice.
30. According to the petitioners, the respondent No.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. SCCH-26 22 MVC.2728/2022 The 1st respondent in the written statement admitted that, he is the owner of offending vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-52- A-4302 and he is having valid permit and valid insurance. The respondent No.2 insurance company has admitted the issuance of insurance policy with respect to offending vehicle and contended that, the driver of vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-52-A-4302 namely Krishnappa has no driving licence at the time of accident. The investigation officer after conducting the investigation has filed the charge sheet against Krishnappa under Sec.181 of M.V. Act, which proves the fact that, the driver of offending vehicle drove the vehicle without having driving licence, which is clear violation of terms and conditions of the contract of insurance policy. Hence, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. Further, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 vehemently argued that after the Amendment to Motor vehicles Act (2022) w.e.f., 01.04.2022, no liability can be fastened on Insurance Company to pay compensation for violation of policy condition including not SCCH-26 23 MVC.2728/2022 holding valid driving license and insurance policy and order for pay and recovery also cannot be passed. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 referred to section 149 of the Act prior to amendment and section 150 of the Act post Amendment. The accident in question occurred on 19.04.2022 i.e., subsequent to the amendment which came into effect from 1/4/2022. As per the provisions of Sec.150 of Motor Vehicles, the insurance company cannot be fastened with liability to pay compensation if there is violation of terms of the policy.
31. In the present case, the driver of Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-52-A-4302 does not appear to show that, he is having valid licence to drive the vehicle which aspect is forthcoming from the materials placed on record. The final report filed by the jurisdictional police also discloses that the driver of Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-52-A-4302 which caused the accident, was not having valid driving license and appropriate penal provision is incorporated by the police in final report to that effect. The materials on SCCH-26 24 MVC.2728/2022 record disclose the aspect of violation of terms of the policy. Though the policy pertaining to offending vehicle is in existence at the time of accident, as there is violation of terms of policy, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. Further, in view of the amendment to the Act, as discussed supra, no liability can be fastened on Respondent No.2, to pay the compensation and to recover the same from the Respondent No.1 under pay and recovery theory.
32. On perusal of the above contentions, it is evident that, the burden was on the respondent No.1 to prove that, at the time of accident, the driver of offending vehicle was having valid driving licence. But, the respondent No.1 has failed to discharge his burden in this case. The respondent No.1 has adduced his evidence, but he has produced any document to show that, at the time of accident, the driver of Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-52-A-4302 was having valid driving licence. On the other hand, in order to establish their contentions, the respondent No.2 has examined its SCCH-26 25 MVC.2728/2022 Legal Manager namely Vinay Prasad as R.W.2. R.W.2 in his evidence by way of affidavit has reiterated the written statement averments. In support of his evidence, R.W.1 has produced two documents, which are marked as Ex.R.6 and Ex.R.7. Ex.R.6 is the authorization letter and Ex.R.2 is the insurance policy.
33. Learned counsel for petitioner has requested to order for pay and recovery as it is the liability against the third party and claimants will be suffered if they do not get compensation.
34.Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 insurance company has argued that the accident has taken place after the amendment of Motor Vehicles Act, which came into effect from 01-04-2022 and there is no provision of pay and recover under the amended Act. Hence it is requested to exonerate the insurance company for paying the compensation.
SCCH-26 26 MVC.2728/2022
35. In this case, the respondent No.1 owner of the Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-52-A-4302 even filed the written statement and lead evidence, he has failed to show that, he has not violated the policy condition wilfully. Thereby the conduct of respondent No.1-owner allowing the person, who was not possessed the valid driving licence to ride the offending vehicle is a breach of policy condition and thereby the insurance company cannot be fastened with liability. The respondent No.1 being the owner cannot take the benefit of his own wrong. The alleged accident was occurred on 19.04.2022. It means the accident was occurred to post amendment of the Motor vehicle Act. Section 150(2) of Motor Vehicle Act (amendment) reads thus:
"(2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of SCCH-26 27 MVC.2728/2022 the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as its execution is stayed pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto." Hence, fastening of liability on respondent No.1 viz insurance company does not arise at all.
36. In such circumstances, the burden was on the respondent No.1 to prove that, at the time of accident, the driver was having valid driving license. But, the respondent No.1 has failed to discharge his burden in the case. The respondent No.1 has adduce his evidence, but nor he has not produced the driving licence of the driver to show that, at the time of accident driver of the offending vehicle was having valid driving licnece. The respondent No.1 has not made out any grounds to show that the driver of offending vehicle was having valid driving licence at the time of accident. The oral answer of respondent No.1 is not sufficient to consider that there was a valid D.L. to the driver of offending vehicle. On perusal of Ex.P.8 the charge SCCH-26 28 MVC.2728/2022 sheet, it clearly shows that, the police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the offending Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-52-A-4302 for the offence punishable under Sec.181 of M.V. Act for having not possessed the valid D.L. Hence, it clearly establishes that, the driver of the above said vehicle was not possessed valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Hence, the insurance company cannot be fastened with liability.
37. By keeping the arguments canvassed by both the parties in background, there is no dispute that at the time of accident the offending vehicle was covered with insurance. But the violation of the condition of insurance policy is stands established.
38. This Court also finds that since the contract of insurance is between insurer and the owner and has no concern with the claimants who are in fact victims of the accident, language used in section 149 (prior to amendment) and section 150 (after amendment) would SCCH-26 29 MVC.2728/2022 show that notwithstanding the fact that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel the policy on account of breach of terms thereof, it shall pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the award. Therefore, whether Insurance Company cancels or does not cancel an insurance policy, the same have nothing to do with the claimants and they are entitled to get the amount from insurer. It means that claimants' right to receive compensation from the insurer at the first instance is unaffected by the inter-se rights and liabilities arising out of contract between the insurer and the owner.
39. Under such circumstances, the insurance company cannot be fastened with liability of pay and recover when there is clear breach of rules of IMV Act and liability to pay compensation is on the respondent No.1 owner. Under such circumstances, the insurance company cannot be fastened with liability of pay and recover when there is clear breach of rules of IMV Act and liability to pay compensation is on the respondent No.1 owner. The final report filed by the SCCH-26 30 MVC.2728/2022 police also indicates the aspect of rider of offending motor cycle not holding valid driving license and insurance policy at the time of accident. There is violation of terms of the policy issued by respondent No.2. As there is violation of terms of the policy, the liability cannot be fastened on respondent No.2 to pay the compensation. Hence, the respondent No.1 owner of the offending Tipper Lorry is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner is entitle for compensation of Rs.1,18,92,840/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Accordingly issue No.3 is answered as partly in the Affirmative.
40. ISSUE No.4 :- In view of the discussion made supra, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following :
:: ORDER ::
The petition filed U/sec.166 of M.V Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petition against respondent No.2 is hereby dismissed.SCCH-26 31 MVC.2728/2022
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,18,92,840/- (Rupees One Crore Eighteen Lakhs Ninety Two thousand Eight Hundred and Forty only) with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the compensation amount within 60 days from the date of this order.
On deposit of the award amount together with interest, the petitioners are entitled for the compensation amount by way of apportionment as follows : Petitioner No.1 - 60% Petitioner No. 2 - 40 % Out of the total compensation amount, 25% of the apportionment amount shall be kept in FD in the name of petitioner No.1 and 2 in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank for a period of 3 years and balance 75% shall be disbursed to them through SCCH-26 32 MVC.2728/2022 E-payment on proper identification. However the Petitioner No.1 and 2 are at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on their deposit amount from time to time.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw an award accordingly. (Dictated to the stenographer, directly over computer, typed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this day 20th day of January, 2026) (APPASAB NAIK) XXIV ADDL. SCJ & ACJM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE I. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
P.W.1 : Smt. Chandrika V.
P.W.2 : Sri. Shivakumar N.
II. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
Ex.P.1 : True copy of FIR.
Ex.P.2 : True copy of complaint.
SCCH-26 33 MVC.2728/2022
Ex.P.3 : True copy of seizer panchanama. Ex.P.4 : True copy of motor vehicles accident report.
Ex.P.5 : True copy of rough sketch. Ex.P.6 : True copy of Inquest report. Ex.P.7 : True copy of PM report. Ex.P.8 : True copy of charge sheet. Ex.P.9 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card of deceased Ex.P.10 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner No.1 Ex.P.11 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner No.2.
Ex.P.12 : Family tree.
Ex.P.13 : Bank statement of the deceased.
Ex.P.14 : Authorization letter pertaining to P.W.2.
Ex.P.15 : Notarized copy of ID Card of P.W.2.
Ex.P.16 : Appointment letter of deceased.
Ex.P.17 : Letter of regularization of service.
Ex.P.18 : Confirmation of appointment letter.
Ex.P.19 : Pay slip for the month of February 2022,
to 21 March, 2022 and April 2022 (3 in Nos.)
Ex.P.22 : Muster roll from 01.02.2022 to
30.04.2022.
Ex.P.23 : Salary transfer details.
Ex.P.24 : True copy of incorporation certificate.
Ex.P.25 : True copy of license.
SCCH-26 34 MVC.2728/2022
III. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
R.W.1 : Sri. Lakshminarayana. R.W.2 : Vinay Prasad G. IV. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R.1 : Original R.C. Card. Ex.R.2 : Certificate of fitness. Ex.R.3 : Insurance policy. Ex.R.4 : Police notice dated:10.05.20222. Ex.R.5 : Reply to the notice issued as per Ex.P.5 Ex.R.6 : Letter of authorization Ex.R.7 : Insurance policy.
APPASAB Digitally by APPASAB signed RAMAPPA RAMAPPA NAIK Date: 2026.01.29 NAIK 10:41:30 +0530 (APPASAB NAIK) XXIV ADDL. SCJ & ACJM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU.