[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
Chandramma vs Sengali on 7 April, 2025
SCCH-8 1 MVC No.3490/2021
KABC020214462021
IN THE COURT OF XII ADDL. SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
(SCCH-08)
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF APRIL - 2025
PRESENT: Smt. Kannika M.S.
M.A. LL.B,
XII ADDL. SCJ & ACJM
MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU.
M.V.C. No.3490/2021
Petitioner/s: 1. Smt. Chandramma,
W/o. Late Rudrappa @
Rudreshappa,
Aged about 40 years.
2. Sri. Kiran M.R.,
S/o. Late Rudrappa @ Rudreshappa,
Aged about 19 years.
Both are R/at:
S. Valmeeki Road,
Ganjeenahalli Village,
Chattnahalli Post,
Honnalli Taluk,
Davanagere District.
(By Sri/Smt. B.R. Usharani,
Advocate)
Vs.
SCCH-8 2 MVC No.3490/2021
Respondent/s: 1. Sri. Sengali,
S/o. Sengoda Gounder,
Since dead by his Lrs.
Sathish S.,
S/o. Sengali
73/8, EL,
Kulandan Street, Aspettai,
Namakkal Taluk & District,
Tamil Nadu - 637001.
Exparte
2. The New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,
Motor Claims HUB,
1st Floor, Mahalakshmi Chambers,
Near Trinity Circle,
M.G. Road,
Bengaluru - 560001.
By Sri. G.S. Marulaiah, Advocate
Date of institution 13.08.2021
Nature of the Case : Seeking
Compensation/Award
Date of commencement : 22.08.2023
of Recording of evidence
Date of Judgment : 07.04.2025
pronounced
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, claiming the compensation of
Rs.50,00,000/- from the respondents with regard to the death of
SCCH-8 3 MVC No.3490/2021
Manju M.R., in the road traffic accident that took place on
19.06.2021.
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioners as follows:
On 19.06.2021 at 8.45 p.m. when the deceased Manju M.R.
was riding his motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-17-HD-3958 near
Jogihalli, Sira-Tumkuru NH-48 Road, Kallambella Hobli, Sira
taluk, at that time the driver of the lorry bearing Reg. No. TN-28-
AQ-1569 had parked the said vehicle in the middle of the road
without taking proper precaution and without giving any
indication, due to which when the deceased saw the lorry, steered
his motor cycle and in the process, motor cycle touched the back
right side of the lorry, as a result he sustained injuries and died
on the spot. Thereafter, deceased body was shifted to Government
hospital, Sira and after conducting post-mortem, the dead body
was handed over to the petitioners and they have performed the
last rites and obsequies of the deceased by spending huge amount
towards funeral expenses.
3. It is stated that, the deceased was working as coolie
and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The deceased was the only
bread earner of their family and due to his death, the petitioners
are undergoing mental shock and agony, lost love and affection of
their son and brother and facing great financial difficulties. It is
further stated that the accident in question was due to the rash
and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.
SCCH-8 4 MVC No.3490/2021
No. TN-28-AQ-1569. Hence, the 1st respondent being the owner
and 2nd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
4. On service of notice, respondent No.2 appeared before
the court through the counsel and filed written statement. Inspite
of service of notice, 1st respondent remained absent, hence he was
placed exparte.
5. The 2nd respondent in its objection statement has
denied all the petition averments and contended that the petition
itself is not maintainable either on facts or law. It has denied the
age, income and occupation of the deceased. It has also denied
the amount spent towards the medical and funeral expenses of
the deceased. Further admitted the issuance insurance policy in
respect of the offending vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN-28-AQ-1569
and liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions of the
policy, provision of MV Act, valid and effective driving licence held
by the driver of the lorry, valid RC, permit and FC. It has also
contended that owner and jurisdictional police have not complied
the Sec.134(c) and Sec.158(6) of M.V. Act. It has denied the
alleged negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Further
contended that the compensation and interest claimed by the
petitioners are excessive and exorbitant. Hence on all these
grounds, it has sought for dismissal of the petition.
SCCH-8 5 MVC No.3490/2021
6. Based on the pleadings, the issues framed by my
predecessor in office are recasted as follows:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal heirs
of deceased Sri.Manju M.R. ?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that when the deceased
Manju M.R. was riding his motor cycle bearing Reg.
No.KA-17-HD-3958 near Jogihalli, Sira-Tumkuru NH-48
Road, Kallambella Hobli, Sira taluk, at that time the
driver of the lorry bearing Reg. No. TN-28-AQ-1569 had
parked the said vehicle in the middle of the road without
taking proper precaution and without giving any
indication, due to which when the deceased saw the
lorry, steered his motor cycle and in the process, motor
cycle touched the back right side of the lorry, as a result
he sustained injuries and died on the spot?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If
so, to what extent and from whom?
4. What order or Award?
7. In order to prove the case, 1 st petitioner got examined
herself as PW.1 and got marked documents as per Ex.P1 to 13.
Also examined one witness as PW.2. On the other hand,
respondent No.2 has examined one witness as RW.1, and he got
marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D5 documents.
8. Heard the arguments.
SCCH-8 6 MVC No.3490/2021
9. My findings on the above issues as under:-
Issue No.1 ... In the affirmative,
Issue No.2 ... In the affirmative,
Issue No.3 ... Partly in the affirmative,
Issue No.4 ... As per final order
For the following:
REASONS
10. ISSUE NO.2 : It is the case of the petitioners that, on
19.06.2021 at 8.45 p.m. when the deceased Manju M.R. was
riding his motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-17-HD-3958 near
Jogihalli, Sira-Tumkuru NH-48 Road, Kallambella Hobli, Sira
taluk, at that time the driver of the lorry bearing Reg. No. TN-28-
AQ-1569 had parked the said vehicle in the middle of the road
without taking proper precaution and without giving any
indication, due to which when the deceased saw the lorry, steered
his motor cycle and in the process, motor cycle touched the back
right side of the lorry, as a result he sustained injuries and died
on the spot. It is specifically urged that, the accident happened
because of the rash and negligent act of the offending vehicle
driver and as such the respondents are liable to pay
compensation to the petitioners.
11. In order to substantiate the contentions of the
petitioners, the petitioner No.1 stepped into the witness box and
filed her affidavit-in-lieu of oral examination-in-chief as PW1 and
SCCH-8 7 MVC No.3490/2021
got marked F.I.R, F.I.S, spot mahazar, sketch, Inquest Report,
P.M. Report, 133 notice and reply, IMV Report and Charge sheet
as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. Petitioners have also examined one
witness as PW.2. On the other hand, respondent No.2 has
examined its representative as RW.1 and he got marked
authorisation letter, insurance policy, permit and FC, letter to
owner of the vehicle and postal receipt as per Ex.D1 to 5
documents.
12. This issue revolves round the sphere and ambit as to
the alleged rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the
offending vehicle. The factum of negligence has to be proved like
any other fact in issue. Before dwelling into analyzing the factum
of alleged negligence, it is relevant to have the conceptual aspects
pertaining to factum of negligence. There are four basic elements
that a person has to fulfill in order to do a negligent act. These
elements are as follows:
Duty: For committing a negligent act, there must be some
duty on the part of the defendant. Here it is important to
understand whether the defendant has taken legal duty of care
towards the plaintiff.
Breach of Duty: After fulfilling the first criteria the plaintiff
must prove that the defendant has breached the legal duty
imposed on him/her. It talks about the breach of duty on the part
of the defendant which he/ she is expected to do as he/ she has
some legal duty towards the plaintiff.
SCCH-8 8 MVC No.3490/2021
The action of causing something: It means that the
damage caused to the plaintiff is due to the act of the defendant.
Here the defendant may do an act which is not expected from
him/her or the defendant may be negligent in not doing an act
which was expected from him/ her.
Damages: At last what matters is, there must be some
damage/injury that is caused to the plaintiff and this damages
should be the direct consequence of the defendant’s act.
Negligence means a breach of duty caused by omission to do
something which has reasonable man guide by those
consideration which ordinarily regulated conduct of human affairs
would do which a prudent man would not do. In common
prevalence negligence connoted to the want of proper care and the
rashness conveys the idea of recklessness or the doing of an act
without due consideration.
13. The death of Manju M.R. and accident is not disputed.
According to the respondent No.2 there is no negligence on the
part of the driver of the lorry bearing Reg No. TN-28-AQ-1569, but
they have not disputed the death of deceased. But their main
contention is that in the said accident deceased also ride his
motorcycle in over speed and negligent manner.
Ex.P3 is the Mahazar and Ex.P4 is the Sketch prepared by
the police attached by the Kallambella PS, Sira taluk, Tumkur
district. On perusal of these two documents the accident was
occurred on the main road of Sira-Tumkur NH-48 road. The IO
who prepared the sketch has clearly mentioned the place of
SCCH-8 9 MVC No.3490/2021
accident. On perusal of the same it can be observed that, the
driver of the lorry has parked the vehicle on the main road
without giving any indication which shows clear negligence on the
part of the driver of the lorry. The deceased who was riding the
motor cycle would have observed the vehicle which was stopped
on the road. The deceased while trying to avoid the vehicle which
is stopped on the road, had dashed to the rear portion of the lorry
on its right side which shows that deceased was riding his vehicle
in high speed. If he was riding the motor cycle in a slow manner
at least he could have avoid the accident or even if the accident
was occurred then the deceased may not have sustained grievous
injuries which resulted his death. The PW.1 and PW.3 are the eye
witnesses to the alleged accident. There is no evidence before this
tribunal that the police have falsely shown the place of accident in
Ex.P4, sketch by colluding with the respondent. Infact there is no
enmity between the petitioners and the IO to prepare false sketch.
It is pertinent to note that the petitioners have produced the
sketch and they rely on the said document. After investigation,
the IO has filed charge sheet against the driver of the lorry and
also the rider of the motor cycle/deceased as per Ex.10.
As per the police report accident occurred on the National
High way 48 the lorry has been parked on the 3 rd line of the said
road. As per Section 122 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
prohibits leaving a vehicle in a dangerous position, meaning
it cannot be abandoned or left at rest in a public place in a
way that causes or is likely to cause danger, obstruction, or
undue inconvenience to other road users or passengers.
SCCH-8 10 MVC No.3490/2021
The negligent act of the lorry driver clearly shown in the
police document, in a national high-way road all vehicles will
proceed in the minimum speed, speed of the motor cycle rider is
not a criteria to negligence. The petitioner counsel has relied on
decision of Honble High court of Karnataka which was reported
in ILR 2002 KAR 893 in between Kumari Jyothi and Others vs.
Mohd. Usman Ali and Others and 2024 ACJ 2019 in between
Radha Rani and others vs. Mohan Singh and another, the court
held that
“Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(Central Act No.59 of 1988)
Section 122, 166 and 168- Accident occurred about one hour
after midnight when a Motorcycle driven by the deceased crashed
into an unattended Lorry parked without any sign or indication to
warn the other road users and in this accident both the
Motorcycle driver and pillion rider died. Tribunal apportioned
negligence equally between the driver of the Motorcycle and the
driver of the Lorry. In appeal High court held that the negligence
could be attributed only to the driver of the Lorry in view of the
provisions of Section 122 of the Act.”
I have perused the said decision, with due respect, the facts
and circumstances narrated in the said case is aptly applicable to
the case on hand.
Respondent has failed elicited from the mouth of the Pw1
and 2 to show that Lorry had parked with any sign or indicator,
neither the driver not the cleaner of the Lorry was examined to
say that any sign or indication was provided in regard to the
parked vehicle. Therefore it is clears that the negligence could be
SCCH-8 11 MVC No.3490/2021
attributed only to the driver of the lorry in view of the provision of
Section 122 of the MV act. Hence this tribunal is of the opinion
that the accident was occurred due to only negligence of the
driver of the lorry and there is no negligence on the part of the
deceased. If the driver of the lorry parked his vehicle with a signal
the rider of the motorcycle could have proceed slowly and applied
the brake and avoid the accident. Hence this tribunal is of the
opinion that accident occurred due to the negligent act of the
driver of the Lorry bearing No. TN-28-AQ-1569. I answer the Issue
No.2 in the Affirmative.
14. Issue No.1 and 3: While answering issue No.2, I have
already observed that the death of Manju M.R., was occurred due
to the negligence of driver of the offending vehicle lorry bearing
Reg. No. TN-28-AQ-1569.
The petitioner No.1 is stated to be the mother, petitioner
No.2 is the brother of the deceased. To prove the same, petitioner
No.1 filed affidavit-in-lieu of her chief-examination and deposed
about the above relationship. The Aadhar cards at Ex’s.P.11 to 13
and contents of the police papers do fortify the said fact. It is
pertinent to note that the relationship of the petitioners with the
deceased has not been disputed by the respondents. Since the
evidence led by the petitioners is satisfactory and also taking into
consideration the fact that there are no rival claimants, this
Tribunal hold that the petitioners are the legal representative of
SCCH-8 12 MVC No.3490/2021
the deceased. Therefore, petitioners are the legal heir and
dependents of deceased and they are entitled for compensation.
15. The petitioners have contended that the deceased was
working in a coolie and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The
petitioners have not produced any document to show the income
of the deceased. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence with
regard to the income of the deceased, the court has to take into
consideration the notional income. Considering the work of the
deceased and year of the accident is 2021, I deem it just and
reasonable to take the notional income of the deceased at
Rs.15,000/- per month.
16. It is stated that the deceased was aged 22 years at the
time of the accident. The petitioners have produced Ex.P13
adhaar card to prove the age of the deceased in which date of
birth is mentioned as 01.06.1999. The accident occurred on
19.06.2021. Hence, the age of the deceased at the time of accident
was 22 years. Hence the proper multiplier applicable to the case
on hand is ’18’.
17. As per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported
in 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) (National Insurance Company
Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and others), if the person died in the
motor accident, the income with respect to the future prospect has
to taken into consideration while awarding compensation.
SCCH-8 13 MVC No.3490/2021
The Hon’ble Apex Court has provide the chart for age
of the deceased and percentage for future prospects in
between below the age of 40 years 40%, 40 years to 50
years 25% and 50 to 60 years 10%.
The deceased is not a permanent Employee and not a fixed
salary person and he died at the age of 22 years. Therefore, in this
case, 40% income has to be taken into consideration for future
prospects. As such, 40% is added to the income of the deceased,
then it comes to Rs.21,000/- p.m.. (Rs.15,000/- + 6,000/- i.e.
40%). The deceased died leaving behind 2 dependents and he was a
bachelor. As per principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Sarala Verma Case, 50%(1/2) of his income is required to be
deducted towards his personal expenses which comes to
Rs.10,500/- p.m.(Rs. 21,000 – Rs.10,500 = Rs.10,500/-).
18. The income of the deceased is taken as Rs.10,500/-
p.m. and the multiplier ’18’ is applied, then the loss of dependency
comes to Rs.22,68,000/- (Rs.10,500 X 12 X 18). Considering the
above facts, this Tribunal deems it just and reasonable to grant for
compensation of Rs.22,68,000/- under the head of loss of
dependency.
19. In this case, petitioner No.1 and 2 are the mother and
brother of the deceased. As per the decision reported in (2018) 12
SCC 130 between Magma General Insurance Company Limited
V/s Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, the petitioners are
entitled for filial consortium, as the filial consortium is the right of
the parents and family members to compensation in the case of an
accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a
SCCH-8 14 MVC No.3490/2021
child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the
deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose of their child
during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection,
companionship and their oral in the family unit. Therefore,
petitioner No.1 and 2 are entitled for Rs.44,000/- each under the
head of Filial consortium.
20. Further, as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court in
National Insurance company Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, the
compensation towards loss to the estate, funeral expenses and
consortium to be awarded. Hence this Tribunal award Rs.16,500/-
towards loss to estate and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses
as enhanced at the rate of 10% on every 3 years.
21. The calculation table stands as follows :
Compensation heads Compensation
amount
1. Towards loss of Rs.22,68,000/-
dependency
2. Towards loss of Filial Rs.88,000/-
Consortium to the petitioners
No.1 and 2(44,000x2)
3. Towards loss to Estate Rs.16,500/-
4. Towards transportation of Rs.16,500/-
dead body funeral and
obsequies ceremony
expenses
Total Rs.23,89,000/-
In all the petitioners and Respondent No.3 are entitled for
total compensation of Rs.23,89,000/-.
SCCH-8 15 MVC No.3490/2021
22. As regard the apportionment of the compensation,
petitioners No.1 and 2 are mother and brother of the deceased.
Therefore out of the total compensation, the petitioners No.1 and
2 are entitled for compensation at the ratio of 75:25.
23. The petitioners are claiming interest on the
compensation amount. The respondent No.2 has denied the same.
Our Hon’ble High Court in the case rendered in Vijay Ishwar
Jadhav and others Vs Ulrich Belchior Fernandes and another
(MFA.No.100090/2014 C/W MFA.No.25107/2013 dated
07.03.2018), has held that in the absence of any other law
relating to interest on judgments, the MACT has to follow the
provisions of Sec.34 of C.P.C and awarded interest @ 6% per
annum. Considering the aforesaid decision, I deem it proper to
award interest at 6% per annum on the above compensation
amount.
24. Liability: Regarding fixation of liability is concerned,
I have already observed that the accident was taken place due to
the negligence on the part of the driver of offending vehicle
bearing Reg. No.TN-28-AQ-1569.
25. It is not in dispute that 1st respondent is the owner of
the offending vehicle. The respondent No.2 main contention is
that during the period of accident offending Lorry bearing No.TN-
28-AQ-1559 had no valid permit therefore they not liable to pay
the compensation. In support of their contention the Respondent
No.2 has relied on Ex.R3 which was the history of permit of the
SCCH-8 16 MVC No.3490/2021
vehicle Registration No. TN-28-AQ-1559. As per this document
the offending Lorry having permit for a period from 25.04.2013 to
24.04.2018, 26.03.2021 to 25.03.2023 and 12.10.2021 to
11.04.2026. The accident occurred on 19.06.2021. There is no
document to show on the date of accident the offending lorry have
valid permit but in the cross-examination Rw1 has stated that
“ಆರೋಪಿತ ವಾಹನವು ನಿಆರ್ -3 ರಂತೆ ಪರ್ಮಿಟ್ ಅನ್ನು ಪಡೆದಿರುವಾಗ 2018 ರಿಂದ 2021
ಅಕ್ಟೋಬರ್ ರವರೆಗೆ ಬೇರೆ ಯಾವುದಾದರೂ RTO ರಿಂದ ಪಡೆದಿರುವ ಸಾಧ್ಯತೆ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ
ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಆ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ವಾಹನದ ಮಾಲಿಕನು ಯಾವುದೇ ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು ನೀಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು
ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾ ರೆ.” Rw1 has not denied the said suggestion, therefore
there may be chances of having the permit from another RTO
Office. At this stage the Petitioner has relied on decisions reported
in 2023 ACJ 1952 in between G.Shivaputhra vs. P.Shanthamma
and another wherein it is held that:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 149 (2)(a)(i)(a) –
Motor Insurance – Permit – Liability of insurance
company – Pay and recover order- Insurance company
examined officer from RTO who deposed that neither the
offending autorickshaw was having a permit nor any
application to obtain the same was filed – Tribunal
exonerated insurance company from liability – Owner
conteded that policy was subsequently renewed without
verifying whether permit has been obtained which shows
that insurance company never intended to dispute its
liability on the issue of permit – Whether non-possession
of permit amounts to infraction on the part of owner and
tribunal rightly exonerated insurance company from
liability – Held: yes: however, considering the object of
the Act insurance company is directed to pay
compensation at the first instance and then recover the
amount from owner-insured.”
SCCH-8 17 MVC No.3490/2021
Petitioner has also relied on the decision reported in 2024
ACJ 2304 in between Legal Manager, Shriram General Ins. Co.,
Ltd. vs. Nagamma and others.
“Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 49(2) – Motor
Insurance – Permit and fitness certificate – Liability of
insurance company – Pay and recover order – Insurance
company disputes its liability on the ground that
offending canter did not have valid permit and fitness
certificate – Driver was prosecuted under section 56 and
66 of M.V. Act and there was a fundamental breach of
policy – whether insurance company can be directed to
pay compensation and then recover the amount from
owner even if there is fundamental breach of policy –
Held: yes.”
26. In the light of the discussion made supra, the
respondent No.2 has successfully established that the offending
lorry car did not possess valid Permit as on the date of accident to
ply on the road. It is relevant to note that the Insurance Company
can be fastened with the liability on the basis of a valid Insurance
Policy only after the basic facts are pleaded and established by the
owner of the offending vehicle that the said vehicle was not only
duly insured but was also driven by an authorized person having
a valid DL. Under such circumstances the burden of proof was
upon respondent No.1 to prove that his vehicle is valid permit and
driver had a valid DL at the time of accident. But in the instant
case, for the best reasons known to him the owner of the
offending vehicle did not appear before the court. As such, an
adverse inference is drawn against respondent No.1 that he has
SCCH-8 18 MVC No.3490/2021
consciously violated the terms & conditions of the Insurance
policy with regard to the driver’s license. Hence, the respondent
No.2/Insurance company is not liable to indemnify the said
insured under the contract of insurance.
27. Now the next question that arises, whether this Tribunal
can direct the respondent No.2/Insurance company to pay the
award amount together with interest and then recover the same
from the insured/respondent No.1. It is relevant to note that the
Doctrine of ‘Pay and Recover’ was considered by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in a decision reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 between
National Insurance Company V/s Swaran Singh, wherein the
liability of the Insurance company was examined in cases of
breach of policy condition, the insurer has to indemnify the award
amount to the third party and recover the same from the insurer.
Hence it is clear that the statutory liability is on the Insurance
company as per Sec.149 of IMV Act, to pay the compensation first
to the claimant and thereafter the insurance company may
recover the same from the owner of offending vehicle.
In the recent decision reported in 2018 ACJ 690 (Pappu &
others V/s Vinod Kumar Lamba & another) also the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that the mere fact that the vehicle was duly
insured would not perse make the Insurance company liable.
However the Apex Court directed the Insurance Company to pay
the compensation amount and recover the same from owner of
the vehicle.
SCCH-8 19 MVC No.3490/2021
28. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 relied on the
decision reported in AIR 2018 Supreme Court 2662 in between
Armit Paul Singh and Anr. vs. TATA AIG Gen. Ins. Co., Ltd., and
Ors.
29. This court gave anxious consideration to the principles
laid down by the constitutional courts in the above said decision.
In view of the above discussion and the the principles laid down
in the above said decisions are squarely applicable to the case on
hand.
30. Therefore following the ratio laid down in the decisions
cited supra, this Tribunal intends that it is just and proper to
direct the insurer i.e., Respondent No.2 to pay the amount
together with interest @ 6% p.a, from the date of claim petition till
realization of entire award amount to the petitioner herein.
However the respondent No.2 is at liberty to recover the award
amount together with the interest so paid, from the insured/
Respondent No.1/Legal Representative of Respondent No.1, in
appropriate execution proceedings as held in Oriental Insurance
Co.Ltd V/s Nanjappan & others, reported in (2004) 13 SCC
224. With this observation, I answered issue No.1 ‘in the
Affirmative’ and Issue No.2 ‘Partly in the affirmative’.
31. Issue No.4: In view of my findings on issues No.1 and
2, I pass the following:
SCCH-8 20 MVC No.3490/2021
ORDER
The petition is allowed in part with cost.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of
Rs.23,89,000/- (Rupees Twenty three lakhs eighty nine
thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till its realization.
The respondent No.2 is hereby directed to pay the
aforesaid award amount together with interest to the
petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order,
with liberty to recover the same from the
insured/respondent No.1/LR’s of respondent No.1 in
appropriate execution proceedings as held by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd V/s
Nanjappan & others reported in (2004) 13 SCC 224.
On deposit of the award amount together with
interest, the claimants are entitled for the compensation
amount by way of apportionment as follows :
Petitioner No.1 – 75%
Petitioner No.2 – 25%Out of the share amount of Petitioner No.1 and 2
a sum equal to 40% shall be deposited in their
respective names in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank
of their choice for a period of 2 years and the remaining
60% shall be released to them through E-payment on
proper identification and verification. However the said
petitioners are at liberty to withdraw the periodical
interest accrued on the deposit amount from time to
time.
SCCH-8 21 MVC No.3490/2021
Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected,
signed and then pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 7th day of
April 2025)
KANNIKA Digitally signed by
KANNIKA M SMS Date: 2025.04.17 12:16:18
+0530(Kannika M.S.)
XII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes &
Member MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES
Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Smt. Chandramma P.W.2 : Govindaraj
Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P.1 FIR Ex.P.2 First Information Statement Ex.P.3 Spot Mahazar Ex.P.4 Sketch Ex.P.5 Inquest report Ex.P.6 PM report Ex.P.7 133 notice Ex.P.8 Reply Ex.P.9 IMV Report Ex.P10 Charge sheet
Ex.P.11 to 13 Notarized copies of Adhaar card of Petitioners
No.1 and 2 and deceased
SCCH-8 22 MVC No.3490/2021Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents:
RW.1 : Rajendra B.
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1 Authorisation letter
Ex.R.2 Insurance policy
Ex.R.3 Permit and FC
Ex.R.4 Letter to the vehicle owner
Ex.R.5 Postal receipt
Digitally signed by
KANNIKA KANNIKA M S
MS Date: 2025.04.17
12:16:23 +0530
(Kannika M.S.)
XII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes &
Member MACT, Bengaluru.
**********
[ad_2]
Source link