Bangalore District Court
Kavuri Satyavati vs Anawar Kumasagi on 8 October, 2025
KABC020050842024
BEFORE THE COURT OF 10th ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT:
BENGALURU
(SCCH-16)
Present: Sri. Mohammed Yunus Athani
B.A.,LL.B.,
X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.887/2024
Dated this 8th day of October, 2025
Petitioners: 1. Kavuri Satyavati W/o Late Kavuri
Veera Venkata Sathyanarayaa,
Aged about 40 years,
2. Kavuri Sanjana D/o Late Kavuri
Veera Venkata Sathyanarayaa,
Aged about 16 years,
3. Kavuri Chiranjeevi S/o Late Kavuri
Veera Venkata Sathyanarayaa,
Aged about 17 years,
4. Kavuri Chiranjivirao S/o Late
Manikyam,
Aged about 63 years,
5. Kavuri Mani W/o Kavuri
Chiranjivirao @ Chiranjeevi,
Aged about 62 years,
2 MVC No.887/2024
All are R/at No.1-31/A, Chinna
Golavanka Pillanka, East Godavari,
Andhra Pradesh - 533 464.
Petitioners No.2 and 3 being minors
represented by their mother and
natural guardian Kavuri Satyavati
(Sri Umesh M.N., Advocate)
V/s
Respondents: 1. Anawar Kumasagi S/o Kadarbasha,
R/at A/P, Kokatanur Taluk,
Sindagi, Bijapur - 586 104.
(Owner of the Bolero Pickup vehicle
bearing Reg. No.KA-28-D-5508)
(Ex-parte)
2. Magma HDI General Insurance
Company Ltd.,
TP HUB, No.36, H.M. Astraid,
J.C. Road, Minerva Circle,
Journalist Colony, Kalasipalyam,
Bengaluru - 560 002.
(Policy No.
P0023200002/4103/508861,
valid from 22-03-2023 to 21-03-
2024)
(Sri Gururaj Salur, Advocate)
3 MVC No.887/2024
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- from the respondents, on account of death of Kavuri Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana, who is husband of petitioner No.1, father of petitioners No.2 and 3 and son of petitioners No.4 and 5, in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 08-01-2024, at about 5.15 p.m., the deceased Kavuri Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana was driving the Container vehicle bearing No.AP-39-UM-0799, near Geragadde Cross, Aratibail, NH-63 road, Yellapura, Uttara Kannada, slowly, cautiously, by observing all traffic rules and regulations. At that time, all of a sudden a Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing No.KA-28-D-5508, driven by its driver with high speed, in rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against the container vehicle of the deceased. Due to the said impact, the deceased sustained multiple injuries all over the body. 4 MVC No.887/2024 Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Yellapura. But, inspite of the best treatment given by the duty doctor, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the same day at about 6.15 p.m. Earlier to the accident the deceased was working as driver and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. He was contributing his entire earnings to his family. Due to untimely death of a sole bread earner, the petitioners are struggling for their livelihood. The Yellapura Police have registered the case against the driver of the said Bolero Pickup vehicle for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C. The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Hence, they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition and award compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- with interest.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed the 5 MVC No.887/2024 written statement. Whereas, the respondent No.1 did not choose to appear and remained absent. Hence, the respondent No.1 is placed as ex-parte.
4. The respondent No.2 in its written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has admitted the issuance of insurance policy in favour of respondent No.1 in respect of offending Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-28-D-5508 and its validity, as on the date of accident. It has contended that, the driver of the offending Bolero Pickup vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The owner of the said vehicle allowed the driver to drove the same knowingfully well that he has not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. Further, as on the date of alleged accident, the Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing No.KA-28- D-5508 was not having valid permit and fitness certificate to ply in the public place. Hence, there is a violation of policy conditions as well as provisions of Motor Vehicles Act by the 6 MVC No.887/2024 owner of said vehicle. Further it has sought permission to seek protection under Section 147 and 150 of Motor Vehicles Act. It has denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased. Further it is contended that, the Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-28-D-5508 is not at all involved in the alleged accident, the same has been falsely implicated in the alleged accident by the petitioners in collusion with the Police, in order to get wrongful gain and to make wrongful loss to this respondent. Further it is contended that, in the alleged accident there is no negligence on the part of the driver of Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing No.KA-28-D-5508, the said vehicle was driven by its driver in slowly, by following all traffic rules and regulations, on the correct side of the road. Whereas, the deceased drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner, without following any traffic rules and regulations and himself caused the accident. Further it is contended that, the petition is bad for non compliance of provisions under Section 134(c) and 158(6) of Motor Vehicles 7 MVC No.887/2024 Act. Further it is contended that, the compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. For the above denials and contentions, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, the deceased Kavuri Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana S/o Kavuri Chiranjivirao, has succumbed to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, alleged to have been occurred on 08-01-2024 at about 5.15 p.m., near Geragadde Cross, Aratibail, NH-63 road, Yellapura, Uttara Kannada, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing registration No.KA-28-D-5508 ? 8 MVC No.887/2024
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?
6. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 has got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked total 20 documents as Ex.P.1 to 20. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has not adduced any evidence on its behalf.
7. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the entire material placed on record.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following:9 MVC No.887/2024
REASONS
9. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioners that, on 08-01-2024, at about 5.15 p.m., the deceased Kavuri Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana was driving the Container vehicle bearing No.AP-39-UM-0799, near Geragadde Cross, Aratibail, NH-63 road, Yellapura, Uttara Kannada, slowly, cautiously, by observing all traffic rules and regulations. At that time, all of a sudden the offending Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing No.KA-28-D-5508, driven by its driver with high speed, in rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against the container vehicle of the deceased. Due to the said impact, the deceased sustained multiple injuries all over the body and succumbed to said injuries, while undergoing treatment at Government Hospital, Yellapura, on the same day, at about 6.15 p.m. Further it is contended that, earlier to the accident the deceased was working as driver and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. He was contributing his entire earnings to his family. Due to untimely death of a sole 10 MVC No.887/2024 bread earner, the petitioners are struggling for their livelihood.
10. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 has got examined herself as P.W.1 by filing examination-in-chief affidavit, wherein she has reiterated the entire averments made in the petition. Further, in support of their oral evidence, the petitioners have got marked total 20 documents as Ex.P.1 to 20. Out of the said documents, Ex.P.1 is true copy of F.I.R., Ex.P.2 is true copy of first information statement, Ex.P.3 and 3(a) are true copy of spot sketch (total 2), Ex.P.4 is true copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P.5 is true copy of seizure mahazar, Ex.P.6 and 7 are true copy of Motor Vehicles Accident Reports (total 2), Ex.P.8 is true copy of Inquest, Ex.P.9 is true copy of Post-mortem report, Ex.P.10 is true copy of Charge-sheet, Ex.P.11 to 14 are notarized copy of Aadhar cards of deceased and petitioners No.1 to 3, Ex.P.15 is notarized copy of ration card, Ex.P.16 is notarized copy of death certificate, Ex.P.17 is notarized copy 11 MVC No.887/2024 of driving licence of deceased, Ex.P.18 and 19 are notarized copy of Aadhar cards of petitioners No.4 and 5 and Ex.P.20 is notarized copy of ration card.
11. On meticulously going through the police documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 10, prima-facia it reveals that, the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing No.KA-28-D-5508 and dashing the same to Container vehicle of the deceased from opposite direction. Further it reveals that, due to said impact, deceased Kavuri Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana has sustained grievous injuries on his head, neck and face and succumbed to said injuries, while undergoing treatment at Government Hospital, Yellapura. The investigation officer in his final report/charge-sheet, which is marked as Ex.P.10, has clearly stated that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Bolero 12 MVC No.887/2024 Pickup vehicle bearing No.KA-28-D-5508 and dashing the same to the on coming Container vehicle of the deceased.
12. At the outset, is it pertinent to note that, in the present case, the date, time and place of accident, the issuance of insurance policy by the respondent No.2 in respect of Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing No.KA-28-D-5508 and its validity as on the date of accident, are not in dispute. Further, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners has remained undisputed by the owner of offending vehicle/Respondent No.1, as he did not choose appear and contest the case of the petitioners. Whereas, the respondent No.2 insurance company has denied the above averred facts and circumstances of the accident. Further it has taken specific contentions that, the Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-28-D-5508 was not at all involved in the alleged accident, the same has been falsely implicated by the petitioners in collusion with the Police, in order to get wrongful gain and to make wrongful loss to this respondent. 13 MVC No.887/2024 Further it has contended that, the said accident has taken place solely due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. But, the respondent No.2 has failed to establish the said contentions. The respondent No.2 has neither adduced any evidence, nor it has produced any document to show that, the accident in question has occurred due to self rash and negligent driving of the deceased and there was no fault on the part of the driver of offending Bolero Pickup vehicle. Even, it has not stepped into witness box to depose the above contentions on oath. On the other hand, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners clearly establishes that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-28-D-5508 and dashing the same to the Container vehicle of the deceased, from opposite direction. Further it reveals that, the deceased Kavuri Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana has succumbed to grievous injuries 14 MVC No.887/2024 sustained in the said accident. Though, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has cross-examined P.W.1 in length, nothing worth has been brough out from her mouth which creates doubt on the veracity of her evidence or which establishes that, the said accident has not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle or there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in the cause of accident. The P.W.1 has unequivocally denied the suggestions made in her cross- examination that, the accident has taken place solely due to rash and negligent riding of the deceased and he himself has dashed his container vehicle to the offending vehicle.
13. Further, the Ex.P.3 and 3(a) spot sketch (total 2) and Ex.P.4 spot mahazar also clearly speaks that, the said accident has taken place on extreme left side of 24 feet wide Yellapura-Ankola road, near Geragadde Cross, Aratibail, NH- 63 road, Yellapura Taluk, Uttara Kannada District, due to dashing the offending Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing No.KA- 15 MVC No.887/2024 28-D-5508 to ongoing Container vehicle bearing No.AP-39- UM-0799 of the deceased. Further it is pertinent to note, as per Ex.P.6 and 7 Motor Vehicle Accident reports (total 2), the accident has not occurred due to any mechanical defects in the vehicles involved in the accident. When the accident has not taken place due to any mechanical defects in the offending vehicle and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased, then in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it can be presumed that, the said accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle. Further, the investigation officer in his Ex.P.10 final report/charge-sheet has clearly stated that, the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing No.KA-28-D-5508 and the deceased Kavuri Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana has succumbed to grievous injuries sustained in the said accident. Admittedly, the said final report/charge-sheet has not been challenged by the driver 16 MVC No.887/2024 or the owner of offending vehicle. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the final report filed by the investigation officer and other police records, with regard to date, time and place of accident, involvement of the offending Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing No.KA-28-D- 5508 in the said accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle and injuries caused to deceased Kavuri Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana in the said accident and the cause of his death.
14. Further, the Ex.P.9 Post-motem report, clearly speaks that, the deceased Kavuri Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana has died due to haemorrhage following maxillofacial and chest injury sustained in the road traffic accident. There is absolutely no rebuttal evidence placed on record by the respondents to show that, the documents produced by the petitioners are false or concocted documents. In such circumstances and in the light of above observations, it can safely be held that, the respondents have failed to rebut the 17 MVC No.887/2024 oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners, regarding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing No.KA-28- D-5508 and the cause of death of deceased Kavuri Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana.
15. Further, it is well settled principle of law that, in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as required to be done in a criminal trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parameshwari V/s Amir Chand and others, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 635, has clearly held that, "in a road accident claim cases the strict principle of proof as in a criminal case are not required."
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bimla Devi and others V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 513, has clearly held that, "in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the 18 MVC No.887/2024 claimants are merely required to establish their case on touch stone of preponderance of probability and the standard of proof on beyond reasonable doubt could not be applied."
17. Therefore, in the light of ratio laid down in the above cited decisions and for the above stated reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioners have successfully proved through cogent and corroborative evidence that, the deceased Kavuri Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana has succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, occurred on 08-01-2024 at about 5:15 p.m., near Geragadde Cross, Aratibail, NH-63 road, Yellapura Taluk, Uttara Kannada District, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing No.KA- 28-D-5508. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in Affirmative.
18. Issue No.2: While answering above issue, for the reasons stated therein, this Court has already held that, the 19 MVC No.887/2024 petitioners have successfully proved through cogent and corroborative evidence that, the accident is caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing No.KA-28-D-5508 and deceased Kavuri Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana has sustained grievous injuries in the said accident and succumbed to said injuries. Now the petitioners are required to establish that, they are the legal representatives of the deceased. In this regard, they have produced their respective Aadhar cards and Aadhar card of deceased Kavuri Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana and ration cards, which are marked as Ex.P.11 to 15 and 18 to 20. The said documents clearly goes to show that, the petitioner No.1 is wife, petitioners No.2 and 3 are the children and petitioners No.4 and 5 are the parents of deceased Kavuri Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana. On the other hand, the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased Kavuri Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana is not specifically denied by the respondent No.2 in the case and 20 MVC No.887/2024 even there is no contrary evidence on record with respect to same. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the above documents produced by the petitioners and hold that, the petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased Kavuri Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of National Insurance Co. V/s Birender, reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356, has clearly held that, "The legal representatives of the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166(1). The major married son who is also earning and not fully dependant on the deceased, would be still covered by the expression "legal representative" of the deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera (supra) had expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the concerned legal representative. Notably, the expression "legal representative" has not been defined in the Act.
The Tribunal has a duty to make an award, determine the amount of compensation which is just and proper and specify the person or persons to whom such compensation would be paid. The latter part relates to the 21 MVC No.887/2024 entitlement of compensation by a person who claims for the same.
It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only."
20. According to the ratio laid down in above decision, the legal representatives though not fully dependent on the deceased are entitled to claim compensation under all the heads i.e., under both conventional and non-conventional heads. In order to determine the compensation, the age, avocation, income, dependency, future prospects of the deceased and other conventional heads are to be ascertained.
21. The compensation towards loss of dependency: The petitioner No.1 is wife, petitioners No.2 and 3 are the 22 MVC No.887/2024 children and petitioners No.4 and 5 are the parents of deceased Kavuri Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners clearly established that, they are legal representatives of the deceased Kavuri Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana and they were depending on him. The dependency does not only mean financial dependency. Even if the dependency is a relevant criterion to claim compensation for loss of dependency, it does not mean financial dependency is the 'ark of the covenant'. Dependency includes gratuitous service dependency, physical dependency, emotional dependency and psychological dependency. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that, all the petitioners are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of dependency. In order to calculate the loss of dependency, the first step is to determine the age and income of the deceased. 23 MVC No.887/2024
i) Age and income of the deceased: The petitioners have averred that, the age of deceased as on the date of accident was 40 years. To substantiate this point, the petitioners have produced the Aadhar card and Driving Licence of deceased Kavuri Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana, which is marked as Ex.P.11 & 17 respectively, wherein the date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 24-12-1973. Admittedly, the accident has occurred on 08-01-2024. Therefore, as on the date of accident the age of the deceased was 51 years. It is averred in the petition that, as on the date of accident the deceased was hale and healthy and was working as driver and was earning of Rs.50,000/- per month. To substantiate the same, the petitioners have produced Ex.P.17 driving licence of the deceased. But, the petitioners have not produced any document to show that, the deceased Kavuri Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. In such circumstances, there is no other option before this Court, except to consider the 24 MVC No.887/2024 notional income as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
a) The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the cases of, G. T. Basavaraj V/s Niranjan and another, in MFA No.7781/2016, judgment dated 11-08-2022, Ramanna and another V/s Y. B. Mahesh and another in MFA No.140/2017, judgment dated 16-01-2020 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd., V/s Anusaya and others in MFA No.101195/2014, judgment dated 05-01-2023, has clearly held that, "when the income of the deceased is not proved, then the notional income as per the guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is to be adopted as the income of the deceased."
b) Admittedly, the accident has taken place in the year 2024. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased as per the guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is to be treated as Rs.16,500/- per month. 25 MVC No.887/2024 Therefore, the annual income of the deceased in the present case is held as Rs.1,98,000/-.
ii) As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the legal heirs of deceased are also entitled for future prospects of the deceased, though he was not a permanent employee as on the date of death. Since the deceased was aged about 51 years and was not a permanent employee, the future prospects would be 10% of his income, which comes to Rs.19,800/-. Therefore, the future prospects of the deceased is held as Rs.19,800/-. If this income is added to the notional income, then it comes to Rs.2,17,800/-. Further, the annual income of the deceased comes within the exemption limits as per Income Tax Act.
iii) The deduction of personal expenses and calculating the multiplier: The family of the deceased consist of 5 persons i.e., petitioners No.1 to 5. The total 26 MVC No.887/2024 number of dependents of the deceased are five. Therefore, deduction towards the personal expenses of deceased is taken as 1/4th of the total income, which comes to Rs.54,450/-. After deducting 1/4th out of total income, towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the annual income of the deceased is held as Rs.1,63,350/-.
iv) As on the date of death, the age of the deceased was 51 years. As per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others V/s Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 S.C., the appropriate multiplier in the present case is taken as 11. Accordingly, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency is held as Rs.1,63,350/- x 11 = Rs.17,96,850/-.
v) Compensation under conventional heads: In the present case, admittedly the petitioner No.1 is wife, petitioners No.2 and 3 are the children and petitioners No.4 and 5 are the parents of deceased Kavuri Veera Venkata 27 MVC No.887/2024 Sathyanarayana. Hence, the petitioners No.1 to 5 are entitled for compensation under the head of spousal, parental and filial consortium. As per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the compensation under the following conventional heads is awarded:
a) Loss of estate - Rs. 15,000/-
b) Loss of consortium - Rs. 40,000/- each
c) Funeral expenses - Rs. 15,000/-
The compensation under above heads has to be enhanced 10% for every 3 years. Seven years have been lapsed from the date of the judgment. Therefore, the compensation under the above conventional heads is enhanced by 20%, the loss of estate comes to Rs.18,000/-, the loss of spousal, parental and filial consortium comes to Rs.48,000/- each to petitioners No.1 to 5 and funeral expenses comes to Rs.18,000/-.
28 MVC No.887/2024
22. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for compensation under different heads as follows :
Sl. Head of
Amount/Rs
No. Compensation
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 17,96,850-00
2. Loss of spousal, parental Rs. 2,40,000-00
and filial consortium
3. Loss of estate Rs. 18,000-00
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000-00
Total Rs. 20,72,850-00
Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation of Rs.20,72,850/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petition till its realization.
23. Liability: Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing No.KA-28-D-5508. The insurance policy bearing No.P0023200002/4103/508861, issued by the respondent No.2, in respect of offending Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing 29 MVC No.887/2024 No.KA-28-D-5508, was valid from 22-03-2023 to 21-03-2024. As such, the said policy was valid as on the date of accident i.e. 08-01-2024. There is no evidence on record to show that, there is any breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the insured/respondent No.1. Further, the evidence placed on record by the petitioners clearly establishes that, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing No.KA-28-D-5508, the accident has occurred and the deceased Kavuri Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana has succumbed to grievous injuries sustained in the said accident. In such circumstances, the respondent No.1 being the owner of offending vehicle is vicariously liable to compensate for the damage caused by the said vehicle. The respondent No.2 being the insurer of the said vehicle has to indemnify the respondent No.1. Therefore, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. However, the primary liability is on the respondent No.2 to 30 MVC No.887/2024 pay the compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, for the above stated reasons, holding that, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.20,72,850/- from the respondent No.2, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 in Partly Affirmative.
24. Issue No.3: In view of the above findings, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.20,72,850/- (Rupees twenty lakh seventy two thousand eight hundred and fifty only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the above 31 MVC No.887/2024 compensation amount to the petitioners. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fastened on respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the said amount within two months from the date of this order.
The above compensation amount is apportioned as follows:
Petitioner No.1 - Wife - 20% Petitioner No.2 - Daughter - 20% Petitioner No.3 - Son - 20% Petitioner No.4 - Father - 20% Petitioner No.5 - Mother - 20% Out of total compensation amount awarded in favour of petitioners No.1, 4 and 5, 40% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in their names as fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for the period of three years with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining 60% amount with proportionate interest shall be released 32 MVC No.887/2024 in their favour, through e-payment on proper identification and verification.
The entire compensation amount awarded in favour of petitioners No.2 and 3, with proportionate interest shall be deposited in their names as fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till they attain the age of majority.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced in the open Court this the 08 th day of October, 2025) (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners P.W.1: Kavuri Satyavati W/o Late Kavuri Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana Documents marked on behalf of petitioners Ex.P.1: True copy of F.I.R.
Ex.P.2: True copy of First Information Statement 33 MVC No.887/2024 Ex.P.3 & True copy of Spot Sketch (total 2) 3(a):
Ex.P.4: True copy of Spot Mahazar Ex.P.5: True copy of Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.6 & 7: True copy of M.V.A. Reports (total 2) Ex.P.8: True copy of Inquest Mahazar Ex.P.9: True copy of Post-mortem Report Ex.P.10: True copy of Charge-sheet Ex.P.11 to Notarized copy of Aadhar Cards of 14: deceased and petitioners No.1 to 3 Ex.P.15: Notarized copy of Ration Card Ex.P.16: Notarized copy of Death Certificate Ex.P.17: Notarized copy of Driving Licence of deceased Ex.P.18 & Notarized copy of Aadhar Cards of 19: petitioners No.4 and 5 Ex.P.20: Notarized copy of Ration Card Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents
-Nil-
Documents marked on behalf of respondents
-Nil-
(Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.