[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
Nirmala C vs B.M.T.C on 3 June, 2025
KABC020280632023
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. Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.6069/2023
Dated this 3rd day of June, 2025
Petitioners: 1. C. Nirmala W/o Late Nagesha,
D/o Chikkanna,
Aged about 23 years,
Residing at Hotteppanahalli,
Challakere, Chitradurga - 577 522.
2. Rajakka W/o Thimmappa,
Aged about 58 years,
Residing at Honnuru,
Devareddyhalli,
Chitradurga - 577 529.
3. Venkatesh S/o Thimmappa,
Aged about 27 years,
Residing at Honnuru,
Ghataparthi,
Chitradurga - 577 543.
(Sri Manjunatha H. S., Advocate)
2 MVC No.6069/2023
V/s
Respondent: The Managing Director,
B.M.T.C. Depot,
Bengaluru Central Office,
K.H. Road, Shanthinagar,
Bengaluru - 560 027.
(R.C. Owner of BMTC Volvo Bus bearing
Reg. No.KA-01-F-4409)
(Sri K. M. Sanath Kumara, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-
from the respondent, on account of death of Nagesha, who
is husband of petitioner No.1, son of petitioner No.2 and
brother of petitioner No.3, in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 13-06-2023 at about 6.30 a.m., deceased Nagesha
was a pedestrian at platform No.22, 3rd Ring, BMTC Bus Stand,
Majestic, Bengaluru City. At that time, the driver of BMTC
Volvo Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-01-F-4409 suddenly drove the
said bus ahead, in rash and negligent manner, endangering
3 MVC No.6069/2023to human life, without observing any of the traffic rules and
regulations and dashed against already stopped BMTC Bus,
due to which the deceased who was a pedestrian was struck
in between two BMTC Buses and succumbed to fatal injuries.
Earlier to the accident, the deceased was working in hotel and
was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- 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 Upparpet Traffic Police have
registered the case against the driver of the said BMTC Bus
for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of
I.P.C. The respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle.
Hence, the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the
petitioners. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition and
award compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- with interest.
3. On service of notice to the respondent, the
respondent has appeared through his counsel and filed the
written statement.
4 MVC No.6069/2023
4. The respondent in his written statement has denied all
the allegations made in the petition. It has denied that, there
was any accident either due to rashness and negligence on
the part of the BMTC Bus or its driver. Further it is contended
that, there was no accident caused either by the bus bearing
No.KA-01-F-4409 and its driver on 13-06-2023 and the bus in
question has successfully completed all its schedule trips on
13-06-2023, without any accident or disturbance or any other
incident and the said bus is not at all involved in the alleged
accident. Further it is contended that, the BMTC bus in
question had been on its schedule trip from Kempegowda
Bus Station to Attibele on 13-06-2023 and it has completed all
its schedule trips. A false case has been filed by the
petitioners for unlawful gain, in respect of alleged injuries
sustained by the deceased somewhere else. He has denied
the age, income and avocation of the deceased. Further it is
contended that, the compensation claimed is highly excessive
5 MVC No.6069/2023
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,
deceased Nagesha S/o Thimmappa has
succumbed to the injuries sustained in
vehicular accident, alleged to have been
occurred on 13-06-2023 at about 6.30
a.m., due to rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the BMTC Volvo Bus
bearing Reg. No. KA-01-F-4409 ?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to
compensation? If so, what is the
quantum and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?
6 MVC No.6069/2023
6. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.3 has
got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 21
documents as Ex.P.1 to 21. On the other hand, the
respondent has examined his driver as R.W.1 and got
marked two documents as Ex.R.1 and 2.
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:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioners that, on
13-06-2023 at about 6.30 a.m., when the deceased Nagesha
was walking at platform No.22, 3rd Ring, BMTC Bus Stand,
Majestic, Bengaluru City, the driver of offending BMTC Volvo
7 MVC No.6069/2023
Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-01-F-4409 suddenly drove the said
bus ahead, in rash and negligent manner, without observing
any of the traffic rules and regulations and dashed against
already stopped BMTC Bus, due to which the deceased was
struck in between two BMTC Buses and succumbed to fatal
injuries. Further it is contended that, earlier to the accident,
the deceased was working in hotel and was earning a sum
of Rs.30,000/- 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.
10. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.3 has
got examined himself as P.W.1 by filing his examination-in-
chief affidavit, wherein he has reiterated the entire
averments made in the petition. Further, in support of their
oral evidence, the petitioners have got marked total 21
documents as Ex.P.1 to 21. Out of the said documents,
Ex.P.1 is certified copy of F.I.R., Ex.P.2 is certified copy of first
information statement, Ex.P.3 is certified copy of sketch,
8 MVC No.6069/2023
Ex.P.4 is certified copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P.5 is certified
copy of charge-sheet, Ex.P.6 is certified copy of statement of
eye-witness, Ex.P.7 is certified copy of statement of witness,
Ex.P.8 is certified copy of notice under Section 133 of Motor
Vehicles Act, Ex.P.9 is certified copy of reply to notice under
Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act, Ex.P.10 is certified copy of
statement of accused, Ex.P.11 is certified copy of post-
mortem report, Ex.P.12 is certified copy of Motor Vehicle
Accident report, Ex.P.13 is certified copy of inquest, Ex.P.14
is certified copy of statement of witness under Section 174
of Cr.P.C., Ex.P.15 to 17 are notarized copy of Aadhar cards
of petitioners No.1 to 3, Ex.P.18 is notarized copy of election
ID card, Ex.P.19 and 20 are notarized copy of PAN cards of
petitioners No.1 and 3 and Ex.P.21 is wedding invitation
card.
11. On meticulously going through the police documents
marked as Ex.P.1 to 14, prima-facia it reveals that, the said
accident is caused due to rash and negligent driving of the
9 MVC No.6069/2023
driver of BMTC Volvo Bus bearing No.KA-01-F-4409 inside
the bus-stand campus and dashing the same to deceased
Nagesha, who was walking infront of said bus and
thereafter to another BMTC bus, which was stopped in the
said bus-stop, due to which the deceased got struck in
between two buses, sustained grievous injuries on his
stomach, hands and legs and succumbed to said injuries on
the spot. Further it reveals that, due to said impact, the
deceased struck between two BMTC buses and he
succumbed to said injuries on the spot. The investigation
officer in his final report/charge-sheet, which is marked as
Ex.P.5, has clearly stated that, the said accident is caused
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of BMTC Bus
bearing No.KA-01-F-4409 and the deceased Nagesha has
succumbed to grievous injuries sustained in the said
accident.
12. The respondent has specifically denied that, the above
averred facts and circumstances of the accident and taken
10 MVC No.6069/2023
specific defence that, the BMTC Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-01-
F-4409 is not at all involved in the alleged accident, the
deceased has sustained the alleged injuries somewhere else
and succumbed to said injuries and not caused by the
offending bus, the petitioners with an intention to make
unlawful gain from the respondent have falsely implicated
the said bus and in collusion with the Police have foisted a
false case against the driver of the said bus. But, the
respondent has failed to establish the said contentions.
Except the self serving statement of R.W.1, who is the
accused/driver of the offending bus at the time of accident,
there is absolutely no other oral or documentary evidence
placed on record by the respondent to establish the said
contentions. The respondent could have established the said
contentions by examining the eye-witness to the alleged
accident. But, the respondent has not made any efforts or
not taken any steps to examine the eye-witness to the
alleged accident. The respondent has failed to prove
11 MVC No.6069/2023
through cogent and corroborative evidence that, the
offending BMTC Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-01-F-4409 is not at
all involved in the alleged accident, the deceased has
succumbed to injuries sustained somewhere else and the
petitioners with an intention to make unlawful gain from the
respondent have falsely implicated the said bus and in
collusion with the Police have foisted a false case against the
driver of the said bus. In such circumstances, it can safely be
held that, the respondent has failed to rebut the oral and
documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners.
Even there is nothing in the Ex.R.1 compact disc, which
falsifies the case of the petitioners. On the other hand, the
oral and documentary evidence placed on record clearly
establishes that, the said accident is caused due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of BMTC Volvo Bus bearing
No.KA-01-F-4409 and dashing the same to deceased
Nagesha, who was walking infront of said bus and
thereafter to another BMTC bus, which was stopped in the
12 MVC No.6069/2023
said bus-stop, due to which the deceased got struck in
between two buses, sustained grievous injuries on his
stomach, hands and legs and succumbed to said injuries on
the spot. Though, the learned counsel for respondent has
cross-examined P.W.1 in length, nothing worth has been
brought out from his mouth, which creates doubt on the
veracity of his evidence or which goes to show that, the
deceased has succumbed to injuries sustained somewhere
else and not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the offending BMTC bus bearing No. KA-01-F-4409.
13. Further, the Ex.P.3 sketch and Ex.P.4 spot mahazar
clearly goes to show that, the said accident has taken place
at Platform No.22, 3rd Ring, BMTC Bus-stand, Majestic,
Bengaluru City, due to dashing of offending BMTC Bus
bearing No.KA-01-F-4409 to the deceased Nagesha and to
another bus, which was stopped in the bus-stand. Further it
is pertinent to note, as per Ex.P.12 Motor Vehicle Accident
Report, the said accident is not caused due to any
13 MVC No.6069/2023
mechanical defects in the vehicles involved in the accident.
When the accident has not taken place due to the any
mechanical defects in the offending bus 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. There is
absolutely no rebuttal evidence produced by the respondent
to disprove the case of the petitioners and even nothing has
been brought out in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to show
that, the said accident has occurred due to negligence of the
deceased or there was any contributory negligence on the
part of the deceased in the cause of accident.
14. The learned counsel for respondent vehemently
argued that, as per Ex.P.12 Motor Vehicles Accident Report
there is no damage to the Volvo Bus bearing Reg. No. KA-01-
F-4409, as such the said bus is not at all involved in the
alleged accident and the same has been falsely implicated
14 MVC No.6069/2023
by the petitioners in the alleged accident. The said
arguments does not hold good in the present facts and
circumstances of the case. Because, in the present case, the
accident has taken place due to dashing of offending bus to
the deceased Nagesha and thereafter to the stopped bus.
Entire police records clearly speaks that, in between both
the buses the deceased Nagesha was struck and the said
accident has taken place in the bus-stand and not on the
road. In such circumstances, the question of both the buses
coming in contact with each other and getting damage does
not arise and even if both the buses come in contact with
each or collide, probability of getting damage will be less. In
such circumstances, mere for the reason that, there is no
damage caused to the offending bus, it cannot be held that
the said bus is not at all involved in the accident and the
petitioners have falsely implicated the said bus in the said
accident.
15 MVC No.6069/2023
15. Further, the Ex.P.11 Post-motem report, clearly speaks
that, the deceased Nagesha has died due to shock and
hemorrhage as a result blunt trauma sustained to abdomen
in the road traffic accident. The investigation officer in his
final report/charge-sheet, which is marked as Ex.P.5 has
clearly stated that, the said accident is caused due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver of offending BMTC Bus
bearing No.KA-01-F-4409 and deceased Nagesha has
succumbed to injuries sustained in the said accident.
Admittedly, the said final report/charge-sheet has not been
challenged by the owner or driver of the offending BMTC
Bus. 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 BMTC Bus bearing
No.KA-01-F-4409 in the accident, rash and negligent driving
of the driver of offending vehicle, injuries caused to
deceased Nagesha and the cause of his death.
16 MVC No.6069/2023
16. 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) 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.”
17. 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
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 MVC No.6069/2023
18. Therefore, in the light of observations made 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 Nagesha has succumbed to the
injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident, occurred on
13-06-2023 at about 6.30 a.m., at Platform No.22, 3rd Ring,
BMTC Bus Stand, Majestic, Bengaluru City, due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of BMTC Volvo Bus
bearing No.KA-01-F-4409. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in
Affirmative.
19. Issue No.2: While answering above issue, for the
reasons stated therein, this Court has already held that, the
petitioners have successfully proved through cogent and
corroborative evidence that, the alleged accident is caused
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of BMTC
Volvo Bus bearing No.KA-01-F-4409 and the deceased
Nagesha has succumbed to injuries sustained in the said
18 MVC No.6069/2023
accident. 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,
election ID card, PAN cards of petitioners No.1 and 3 and
wedding invitation card, which are marked as Ex.P.15 to 21.
The said documents clearly goes to show that, the petitioner
No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2 is the mother and petitioner
No.3 is the brother of deceased Nagesha. On the other
hand, the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased
Nagesha is not specifically denied by the respondent and
there is no rebuttal evidence 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
Nagesha.
20. 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,
19 MVC No.6069/2023
“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
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 MVC No.6069/2023
21. 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.
22. The compensation towards loss of dependency: The
petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2 is the mother and
petitioner No.3 is the brother of deceased Nagesha. It is
averred by the petitioners that, they are the legal
representatives of the deceased and were depending on the
income of the deceased. Admittedly, the petitioner No.3
being elder brother of the deceased and he working as
coolie and earning income of Rs.400/- per day, he cannot be
considered as dependent of the deceased. Hence, the
petitioner No.3 is not entitled for compensation under the
21 MVC No.6069/2023
head of loss of dependency. Therefore, this Court is of the
opinion that, the petitioner No.1 being the wife and
petitioner No.2 being the mother of deceased Nagesha are
only 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.
i) Age and income of the deceased: The
petitioners have averred that, the age of deceased as on the
date of accident was 25 years. To substantiate the same, the
petitioners have produced the post-mortem report which is
marked as Ex.P.11, wherein the age of the deceased is
mentioned as 25. Therefore, as on the date of accident the
age of the deceased was about 25 years. The petitioners
have stated that, as on the date of accident the deceased
was hale and healthy and he was working in hotel and was
earning Rs.30,000/- per month. But, the petitioners have not
produced any document to show that, the deceased
22 MVC No.6069/2023
Nagesha was working in hotel and he was earning
Rs.30,000/- per month. In such circumstances, there is no
other option before this Court, except to consider the
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 took place in the year
2023. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased as per
23 MVC No.6069/2023
the guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority is to be treated as Rs.15,500/- per month.
Therefore, the annual income of the deceased in the present
case is held as Rs.1,86,000/-.
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 25 years and was not a permanent employee,
the future prospects would be 40% of his income, which
comes to Rs.74,400/- per annum. Therefore, the future
prospects of the deceased is held as Rs.74,400/- per annum.
If this income is added to the notional income, then it comes
to Rs.2,60,400/- per annum. Further, the annual income of
the deceased comes within the exemption limits as per
24 MVC No.6069/2023
iii) The deduction of personal expenses and
calculating the multiplier: The family of the deceased
consist of two persons i.e., petitioners No.1 and 2. The total
number of the dependents of the deceased are two.
Therefore, deduction towards the personal expenses of
deceased is taken as 1/3rd of the total income, which comes
to Rs.86,800/-. After deducting 1/3rd out of total income,
towards the personal expenses of deceased, the annual
income of the deceased is held as Rs.1,73,600/-.
iv) As on the date of death, the age of the deceased
was 25 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 18. Accordingly, the compensation under
the head of loss of dependency is held as Rs.31,24,800/-.
v) Compensation under conventional heads: In
the present case, admittedly the petitioner No.1 is wife,
25 MVC No.6069/2023
petitioner No.2 is mother and petitioner No.3 is brother of
deceased Nagesha. Hence, the petitioners No.1 to 3 are
entitled for compensation under the head of spousal 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/-
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 and filial consortium comes to
26 MVC No.6069/2023
Rs.48,000/- each to petitioners No.1 to 3 and funeral
expenses comes to Rs.18,000/-.
23. Accordingly, the petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled for
compensation under different heads as follows:
Sl. Head of
Amount/Rs
No. Compensation
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 31,24,800-00
2. Loss of spousal and filial Rs. 96,000-00
consortium
3. Loss of estate Rs. 18,000-00
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000-00
Total Rs. 32,56,800-00
24. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, in the case of
Chandrakala W/o Lokesh V/s Dilipkumar M. A. S/o
Amasaiah, in MFA No.1662/2023 (MV-D), dated 02-07-
2024, has clearly held that, “Since the amount due under
the head loss of future prospects is yet to become due, it
would be illogical and illegal to direct the insurance
company to pay interest on loss of future prospects.”
27 MVC No.6069/2023
25. 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 No.1 and 2
are entitled for compensation of Rs.32,56,800/- and the
petitioner No.3 is entitled for compensation of Rs.48,000/-,
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of
petition till its realization (excluding interest on future
prospects amount of Rs.74,400/- x 18 x 2/3 = Rs.8,92,800/-).
26. Liability: Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the
respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle. Further,
the evidence placed on record by the petitioners clearly
establishes that, due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of offending vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-01-F-4409
the accident has occurred and deceased Nagesha has
succumbed to the grievous injuries sustained in the said
accident. In such circumstances, the respondent being the
owner of said vehicle is vicariously liable to compensate for
28 MVC No.6069/2023
the damage caused by the said vehicle. Therefore, for the
above stated reasons, holding that, the petitioners No.1 and
2 are entitled for compensation of Rs.32,56,800/- and the
petitioner No.3 is entitled for compensation of Rs.48,000/-,
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of
petition till its realization (excluding interest on future
prospects amount of Rs.8,92,800/-), I answer Issue No.2 in
Partly Affirmative.
27. 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 No.1 and 2 are
entitled for compensation of
Rs.32,56,800/- (Rupees thirty two lakh
fifty six thousand and eight hundred
only), with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum, from the date of petition till its
29 MVC No.6069/2023realization (excluding interest on future
prospects amount of Rs.8,92,800/-).
The petitioner No.3 is entitled for
compensation of Rs.48,000/- (Rupees
forty-eight thousand only), with interest
at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of
petition till realisation.
The respondent is liable to pay the
above compensation amount to the
petitioners and it is directed to pay the
compensation amount within two
months from the date of this order.
The above compensation amount is
apportioned as follows:
Petitioner No.1 – Wife – 50%
Petitioner No.2 – Mother – 50%
Out of total compensation amount
awarded in favour of petitioners No.1
and 2, 30% 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
30 MVC No.6069/2023draw the accrued interest periodically
and the remaining 70% amount with
proportionate interest shall be released
in their favour, through e-payment on
proper identification and verification.
The entire compensation amount
with proportionate interest awarded in
favour of petitioner No.3, shall be
released in his favour through e-
payment on proper identification and
verification.
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 03 rd day of June,
2025)(Mohammed Yunus Athani)
Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners
P.W.1: Venkatesh S/o Thimmappa
31 MVC No.6069/2023
Documents marked on behalf of petitioners
Ex.P.1: Certified copy of F.I.R.
Ex.P.2: Certified copy of First Information
Statement
Ex.P.3: Certified copy of Sketch
Ex.P.4: Certified copy of Mahazar
Ex.P.5: Certified copy of Charge-sheet
Ex.P.6: Certified copy of Eyewitness Statement
Ex.P.7: Certified copy of Statement of Witness
Ex.P.8: Certified copy of Notice U/sec. 133 of Motor
Vehicles Act
Ex.P.9: Certified copy of Reply to Notice U/sec. 133
of Motor Vehicles Act
Ex.P.10: Certified copy of Volunteer Statement of
Accused
Ex.P.11: Certified copy of Post-mortem Report
Ex.P.12: Certified copy of M.V.A. Report
Ex.P.13: Certified copy of Inquest Report
Ex.P.14: Certified copy of Statement of the witness
under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.
Ex.P.15 to Notarized copy of Aadhar Cards of
17: Petitioners No.1 to 3
Ex.P.18: Notarized copy of Election ID Card
Ex.P.19 & Notarized copy of PAN Cards of Petitioners
20: No.1 and 3
Ex.P.21: Wedding Invitation Card
Witnesses examined on behalf of respondent
R.W.1: Anjaneyappa S. S/o Sriramappa
32 MVC No.6069/2023
Documents marked on behalf of respondent
Ex.R.1: C.D.
Ex.R.2: Certificate U/Sec. 65B of Evidence Act
(Mohammed Yunus Athani)
Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
Digitally signed
by MOHAMMED
MOHAMMED YUNUS A
YUNUS A ATHANI
ATHANI Date:
2025.06.09
11:24:15 +0530
[ad_2]
Source link