Bangalore District Court
Rekha vs Hdfc Ergo General Ins Co Ltd on 23 June, 2025
KABC020319592023
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU. (SCCH-_25)
-: PRESENT:-
PRESENT: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA. R,
B.A.L, LL.B.,
XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JUNE 2025
MVC No.6742/2023
PETITIONER: 1. Smt. Rekha
W/o Late Venkatesha,
Aged about 25 years,
2. Kumari Punyashree
D/o Late Venkatesha,
Aged about 7 years,
3. Kumari Manya Shree
D/o Late Venkatesha,
Aged about 3 years,
4. Sri. M. Nagaraju @
Rajaiah
S/o Late Muniyappa,
Aged about 55 years,
5. Smt. Sowbhagyamma
W/o Nagaraju,
Aged about 51 years,
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.6742/2023
All are R/o at:
No.77, Kenchanahalli
Village, Huliyurudurga
Hobli, Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkuru Dist. - 572 123.
(Petitioners No.2 & 3 are minors,
Rep. by their mother natural
guardian Smt. Rekha)
(By Sri.Puttaswamy H.,
Advocate/s.)
V/S
RESPONDENTS: 1. HDFC ERGO Gen. Ins.
Co. Ltd.,
The Manager,
2nd Floor, No.25/1, Building
No.2, Shankarnarayana
Building,
M.G.Road,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
(Insurer of Mahindra Bolero
LGV-L1 bearing No.AP-02-V-
6256)
(By Sri. Madhu Kiran,
Advocate.)
2. Sri. Nandish
S/o Veerabhadraiah,
Aged Major,
Herohali, Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkur Dist. - 572 130.
(RC owner of Mahindra Bolero
LGV - LI bearing No.AP-02-V-
6256)
(Ex-parte)
SCCH-25 3 MVC No.6742/2023
******
JUDGMENT
This judgment arise out of claim petition filed by the
claimants against respondents under Section 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as “Act”)
praying for awarding compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- for
the death of Venkatesha K.N. was died in a road traffic
accident that occurred on 11.04.2023 at about 12.15pm.
2. The case of the claimants in nutshell is that:
On 11.04.2023 at about 12.15pm, the deceased was
riding the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-09-EW-6373 by
observing all traffic rules, proceeding near Chikkahulikatte
Village Temple, Chowdanakuppe, Tavarekere Main Road,
Huliyurdurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur, all of a sudden
a Mahindra Bolero LGV-LI bearing Reg.No.AP-02-V-6256
came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner so as
to endangering human life and dashed against the deceased.
Due to impact, the deceased was thrown out, fell down and
suffered grievous injuries. knocked down and sustained.
Immediately, after the accident, the deceased was shifted to
Government Hospital, Chowdanakuppe wherein first aid
treatment was provided and thereafter shifted to
Smt.Jayadevi Memorial Hospital, Magadi Main Road,
Bengaluru, admitted as an inpatient, wherein duty doctors
SCCH-25 4 MVC No.6742/2023examined and despite of best efforts by the doctors, the
deceased succumbed to the injuries on the same day. Post
Mortem was conducted at Government General Hospital,
Kunigal and the body was handed over to the petitioners and
they performed the funeral and obsequies by spending more
than Rs.1,00,000/-.
3. It is the further case of the petitioners that, prior
to the date of accident deceased was hale and healthy, doing
Agriculture Work and earning Rs.20.000/- Per month. The
deceased was maintaining the family members. Due to the
sudden and untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners
are terribly and mentally shocked and they have lost love and
affection of the deceased. Hence, the petitioners claims
Rs.35,00,000/- as the general damages for death of deceased,
for mental shock and agony, for loss of earnings, loss of
future earning of the deceased, for loss of love and affections.
The respondent No.1 being the insurer and the respondent
No.2 being the RC owner of the offending Mahindra Bolero
LGV-LI bearing Reg.No.AP-02-V-6256 are jointly and severally
liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
4. The accident in question was taken place due to
rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Mahindra
Bolero LGV-LI bearing Reg.No.AP-02-V-6256 by its driver.
The Huliyurdurga Police have registered a case against the
SCCH-25 5 MVC No.6742/2023
driver of the offending Mahindra Bolero LGV-LI bearing
Reg.No.AP-02-V-6256 in Cr.No.71/2023 p/u/Sec.279, 338
and 304(a) of IPC. For the aforesaid reasons, the claimants
have prayed for awarding total compensation of
Rs.35,00,000/- under various heads.
5. In pursuance of the notice, the respondent No.1
has appeared and filed written statement. In spite of due
service of notice the respondent No.2 did not appear hence,
placed ex-parte.
5A. The respondent No.1 has filed the written
statement denying the entire petition averments except
admitting the issuance of policy in respect of the Mahindra
Bolero LGV-LI bearing Reg.No.AP-02-V-6256 in favour of the
Respondent No.2. There is non compliance of Sec.134(c) and
158(6) of MV Act. It has denied the relationship of the
petitioners with the deceased. It has denied the involvement
of the offending vehicle in the accident and manner of
accident also. Further contended that, the accident caused
due to the negligence of the deceased himself. It has denied
the age, avocation, income, medical expenses etc., the
respondent has denied the liability as insured vehicle was not
involved nor caused any accident. Further contended that the
compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive,
exorbitant. Hence, the respondent No. prayed to dismiss the
petition with costs.
SCCH-25 6 MVC No.6742/2023
6. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the
following issues are framed for determination.
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, they
are the legal representatives and dependents
of the deceased Venkatesha K.N.?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that, the
deceased Venkatesha K.N., had died due to
the injuries sustained in the road traffic
accident that occurred on 11.04.2023 at
about 12.15pm near Chikkahulikatte Village
Temple, Chowdanakuppe, Tavarekere Main
Road, Huliyurdurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkur, due to rash and negligent driving
of driver of Mahindra Bolero LGV-LI bearing
Reg.No.AP-02-V-6256 as alleged?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation as claimed? If so, what
amount and from whom?
4. What order or Award?
7. In order to substantiate the claim petition
contention, the petitioner No.1 has examined herself as PW-1
and got marked total 12 documents as Exs.P1 to 12. During
the cross examination of PW.1, she has confronted a
document as Ex.R.1. The respondents did not examine any
witness nor produced any documents on their behalf.
SCCH-25 7 MVC No.6742/2023
8. I have heard the arguments canvassed by the
counsel for the parties.
9. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence let
in before this tribunal, my answers to the above points are as
follows:
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the affirmatively.
Issue No.3 : Partly in affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per final order, for the foregoing;
REASONS
10. Issue Nos.1 and 2: As these issues are inter-
linked each other, as such I considered these issues together
for common discussion and also to avoid repetition of facts of
the case. As I referred above, In order to substantiate the
claim petition contention, the petitioner No.1 has examined
herself as PW-1 and got marked total Twelve documents as
Ex.P1 to 12 and closed their side evidence. The respondent
No.1 has not examine any witness. The details of the exhibits
are given in the annexure of the judgment.
11. The PW.1 has reiterated the petition averments in
the chief examination. The PW.1 has been subjected to cross
examination. In the cross examination she has admitted that
there is no mention of offending vehicle number in the
complaint and FIR. There were no CC TV near the accident
SCCH-25 8 MVC No.6742/2023
spot. She further denied other suggestions made by the
learned counsel for the parties.
12. To prove the relationship of the petitioners with
the deceased, they have produced notarized copy of Aadhar
Cards of petitioner Nops.1 to 3 as per Ex.P9. Ex.P.6 Inquest
mahazar also shows the names and relationship of the
petitioners with the deceased.
13. It is main defense of the respondent No.1 that the
accident was occurred due to fault of the deceased. The
petitioners have implanted the vehicle number by colluding
with owner and police official. It is undisputed fact that the
the complaint, reply given by the PW.1 to police in
compliance to police notice have not disclosed the number of
the offending vehicle. These documents indicates that the
accident was occurred due to act of the driver of the jeep
which was being designed for repair of borewel. These
document further indicates that said vehicle had not number
plate. It means the vehicle referred to in these documents has
a registration number, but it was not highlighted on the
vehicle by hanging or fixing the number plate. The police
have seized the vehicle involved in this by drawing seizure
mahazar on dated 09.06.2023 marked as Ex.P3. This
document clearly depicted that police Constable by name
Sachin has trace out the vehicle and produced to
SCCH-25 9 MVC No.6742/2023
investigating officer. It means, the investigating officer had
deployed their men to trace out the vehicle or borewel repair
jeep. It is true that this document has not depicted that from
which place the police men were trace out the vehicle.
However, the mahazar contents and police documents
indicate that the driver of the jeep used his vehicle on the
road without displaying the number. Further more, the
offending vehicle was seized in the presence of the driver of
the offending vehicle. So, the materials on the records are
clearly depicts that the driver of the offending vehicle used
his vehicle on the road without displaying the number.
Hence, arguments of the learned counsel for the insurer
regarding implication of the vehicle does not holds any kind
of substance.
14. It is worth to note herein that on careful perusal of
the case status of the criminal case in official website of the
Tumakuru District by searching on accused name, it is found
that the criminal case number 8214-2023 (on the file of
Hon’ble Additional Civil Judge, Kunigal) is not yet disposed
off and the driver of the offending vehicle has got enlarged on
bail in the criminal case.
15. It is undisputed fact that there was a delay in
lodging the case. The First information report indicates that,
the informant had not lodged the complaint in time as he was
SCCH-25 10 MVC No.6742/2023
busy in reporting the death of the victim to relatives of the
deceased. At this juncture, it is beneficial to refer the
Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RAVI V/s.
BADRINARAYAN AND OTHERS. The Hon'ble Apex Court
has observed that
"in accident cases, human nature and
family responsibilities occupy the mind of
kith and kin to such an extent that they
give more importance to get the victim
treated rather than to rush to the Police
Station. Under such circumstances, they
are not expected to act mechanically with
promptitude in lodging the FIR with the
Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus,
cannot be the ground to deny justice to the
victim. In cases of delay, the Courts are
required to examine the evidence with a
closer scrutiny and in doing so; the
contents of the FIR should also be
scrutinized more carefully. If court finds
that there is no indication of fabrication or
it has not been concocted or engineered to
implicate innocent persons then, even if
there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the
claim cannot be dismissed merely on that
ground although lodging of FIR is vital in
SCCH-25 11 MVC No.6742/2023
deciding motor accident claim cases. Delay
in lodging the claim should not be treated
as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant
has been able to demonstrate satisfactory
and cogent reasons for it. There could be
variety of reasons in genuine cases for
delayed lodgment of FIR. In such cases, the
authenticity of the FIR assumes much more
significance than delay in lodging thereof.”
16. In the light of the Judgment referred to supra in
RAVI’s case, it is manifestly clear delay in lodging the FIR
cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. However,
the claim has to be examined with a closer scrutiny,
particularly the contents of the FIR. The First Information
report indicates that, the informant had not lodged the
complaint within time as he was busy in reporting the death
of the victim to relatives of the deceased. So, the informant
has shown the reason for lodging the complaint with delay.
Same has been highlighted in the relevant column of FIR.
So, the reasons assigned by the informant is satisfactory and
cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in
genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. In such cases, the
authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than
delay in lodging thereof.
SCCH-25 12 MVC No.6742/2023
17. The petitioners have totally relied on the police
document to substantiate their claim and also rash and
negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle. The sketch
prepared by the investigating officer while drawing spot
mahazar indicates that the accident was occurred at starting
point of curving, the driver of the offending vehicle was
almost on right side of the road. The damages reflected in the
motor cycle of the deceased and the offending vehicle report
clearly depicts that gravity of offense. The police documents
and other materials are clearly discloses that the driver of the
offending vehicle has dashed his vehicle to the deceased’s
motorcycle. Further more, the investigating officer had led
the charge sheet after thorough investigation.
18. The oral evidence and the entire police records
depicts that, the accident was caused due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending Mahindra Bolero LGV-LI
bearing Reg.No.AP-02-V-6256. A perusal of the entire
evidence of the PW.1 in respect to alleged accident, it is very
relevant to note that, the respondent No.1 has simply denied
the mode of accident but no rebuttal evidence has led before
the Court. Further, the police documents are corroborated
with oral evidence of the PW.1. It is well settled position of
law that the proceedings under Motor Vehicle Act are
summary in nature and it is beneficial legislation and the
evidence required about negligence act is sufficient if it is in
SCCH-25 13 MVC No.6742/2023
the nature of preponderance of probability. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held in a decision 12018 (5) SCC 656
held
“24. It will be useful to advert to the dictum
in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal
[N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal,
(1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 774] ,
wherein it was contended by the vehicle
owner that the criminal case in relation to the
accident had ended in acquittal and for which
reason the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act
ought to be rejected. This Court negatived the
said argument by observing that the nature of
proof required to establish culpable rashness,
punishable under IPC, is more stringent than
negligence sufficient under the law of tort to
create liability. The observation made in para
3 of the judgment would throw some light as
to what should be the approach of the
Tribunal in motor accident cases. The same
reads thus :
“3. Road accidents are one of the top killers in
our country, specially when truck and bus
drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial
recklessness often persuades the courts, as
has been observed by us earlier in other cases,
to draw an initial presumption in several cases
based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Accidents Tribunals must take special care to
see that innocent victims do not suffer and
drivers and owners do not escape liability1
Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
SCCH-25 14 MVC No.6742/2023merely because of some doubt here or some
obscurity there. Save in plain cases,
culpability must be inferred from the
circumstances where it is fairly reasonable.
The court should not succumb to niceties,
technicalities and mystic maybes. We are
emphasising this aspect because we are often
distressed by transport operators getting away
with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the
fact that they do not exercise sufficient
disciplinary control over the drivers in the
matter of careful driving. The heavy economic
impact of culpable driving of public transport
must bring owner and driver to their
responsibility to their neighbor. Indeed, the
State must seriously consider no-fault liability
by legislation. A second aspect which pains us
is the inadequacy of the compensation or
undue parsimony practiced by tribunals. We
must remember that judicial tribunals are
State organs and Article 41 of the
Constitution lays the jurisprudential
foundation for State relief against accidental
disablement of citizens. There is no
justification for niggardliness in
compensation. A third factor which is
harrowing is the enormous delay in disposal of
accident cases resulting in compensation,
even if awarded, being postponed by several
years. The States must appoint sufficient
number of tribunals and the High Courts
should insist upon quick disposals so that the
trauma and tragedy already sustained may not
be magnified by the injustice of delayed
SCCH-25 15 MVC No.6742/2023justice. Many States are unjustly indifferent in
this regard.”
25. In Dulcina Fernandes [Dulcina Fernandes
v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 :
(2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] ,
this Court examined similar situation where
the evidence of claimant’s eyewitness was
discarded by the Tribunal and that the
respondent in that case was acquitted in the
criminal case concerning the accident. This
Court, however, opined that it cannot be
overlooked that upon investigation of the case
registered against the respondent, prima facie,
materials showing negligence were found to
put him on trial. The Court restated the
settled principle that the evidence of the
claimants ought to be examined by the
Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance
of probability and certainly the standard of
proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have
been applied”
The Court cannot adopt strict liability as conducted in
a criminal case to prove rash and negligence on the part of
the driver/RC owner of the respondent No.2’s vehicle. But
there should be prima-facie materials regarding rash and
negligence to fix the owner and insurance company for
payment of compensation. Therefore, a straight jacket
formula cannot be adopted in accepting the rash and
negligence on the part of driver of the insured. The materials
on records are clearly indicates that the accident was
SCCH-25 16 MVC No.6742/2023occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent
No.2 or driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, I hold issue
Nos.1 & 2 are in the affirmative.
19. Issue No.3:
The Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are being wife, minor
children, father, mother of the deceased. It is contention of
the petitioners that the deceased was doing Agriculture Work
and earning of Rs.20,000/- Per month. The petitioner No.1
has reiterated the same in the chief examination affidavit.
But the petitioners have not placed any material worth in
this regard. As per the claim petition the age of the deceased
was 34 years. The Aadhar Card of the deceased at Ex.P.10
discloses that the deceased age was 34 years. As I mentioned
above, the petitioners have not placed any material worth to
show the exact income of the deceased. So, considering the
nature of work, the chart prepared, furnished by the Hon’ble
Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, Bengaluru is taken
in to consideration, the notional income of Rs.16,000/- P.M.
is calculated to award loss of earning, it would meets the
ends of justice. In the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in (2017) 16 SCC 680 in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi and others, if an injured
person is below 40 years, then 40% of future prospects
should be added to his monthly income. So, the monthly
income of deceased is Rs.16,000/- and the 40% of future
SCCH-25 17 MVC No.6742/2023prospects of his income would come to Rs.6,400/- then after
adding the future prospects to his total income it comes to
Rs.22,400/-. As per Sarala Varma’s case the multiplier
applicable to the case on hand is 16. The petitioners are the
wife, children, father and mother all are depending on the
income of the deceased. Therefore, Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are
the dependents of the deceased. If there are 4 to 6
dependents, then 1/4th of the income has to deducted
towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased.
Then the total income of the deceased would come
Rs.16,800/- (Rs.22,400/- – Rs.5,600/- = Rs.16,800/-). The
loss of dependency is calculated as below. Rs.16,800/-
(monthly income) x 12 x 16 (multiplier) =Rs.32,25,600/-.
This is just and proper compensation under the head of loss
of dependency.
LOSS OF ESTATE
20. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Pranay Sethi case in case of death in the maximum
the Court can award Rs.18,000/- in lump sum under the
head of loss of estate.
FUNERAL EXPENSES
21. In view of the Pranay Sethi’s case this tribunal
has no option but to award Rs.18,000/- under this head.
Except these heads the claimants are not entitled for any
compensation.
SCCH-25 18 MVC No.6742/2023
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in a
2
judgment reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 has held in
paragraph No.21 that
“A Constitution Bench of this Court in
Pranay Sethi (Supra) dealt with the various
heads under which the compensation is to
be awarded in a death case. One of these
heads is Loss of Consortium. In legal
parlance Consortium is a compendious term
which encompasses Spousal Consortium;
Parental consortium and filial consortium.
The right to consortium would include the
company, care, help, comfort, guidance,
solace and affection of the deceased, which
is a loss to his family. With respect to a
spouse, it would include sexual relations
with the deceased spouse.”
21 1 “Spousal Consortium is generally
defined as rights pertaining to the
relationship of a husband wife which allows
compensation to the surviving spouse for
loss of Company, Society, co operation,
affection and aid of the other in every
conjugal relation”
21 2 ” Parental Consortium is granted
to the child upon the premature death of a
parent, for loss of parental aid, protection,
affection, society, discipline, guidance and
training.”13,50,180
21 3 ” Filial Consortium is the right of
2
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram
SCCH-25 19 MVC No.6742/2023the parents to compensation in the case of
an accidental death of the Child. An
accident leading to the death of a child
causes great shock, agony to the parents
and family of the deceased. The greatest
agony for a parent is to lose their child
during their lifetime. Children are valued
for their love, affection, companionship and
their role in the family unit.”
22. Consortium is a special prism
reflecting changing norms about the status
and worth of actual relationships. Modern
jurisdictions world over have recognized
that the value of a Child’s consortium far
exceeds the economic value of the
compensation awarded in the case of the
death of a child. Most jurisdictions
therefore, permit parents to be awarded
compensation under loss of consortium on
the death of a child. The amount awarded
to the parents is a compensation for loss of
the love, affection, care and companionship
of the deceased child”.
23. The Petitioner No.1 is being wife and petitioner
Nos.2 & 3 is being minor children of the deceased are entitled
for ‘”Spousal Consortium’ and ‘Parental Consortium’
respectively. In the same manner petitioner Nos.4 & 5 are the
father and mother of the deceased, they are also entitled for
“Filial Consortium”. Hence a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- each) is awarded under this head.
SCCH-25 20 MVC No.6742/2023
24. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for
compensation under the following heads.
Sl. No. Name of the Head Awarded
Compensation
01. Loss of dependency Rs.32,25,600/-
02. Towards loss of estate Rs.18,000/-
03. Towards Funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
04. Loss of Consortium Rs.2,00,000/-
TOTAL Rs.34,61,600/-
25. The next question is the liability to pay the said
compensation to the Petitioners. It is not the case of the
either respondents No.1 that, the insurance was not in force
at the time of accident. Henceforth, the Respondent Nos.1
and 2, who are the insurer and the Owner of the said
offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the
said compensation amount to the petitioners and
consequently the 1st Respondent/Insurer is liable to
indemnify the 2nd Respondent/owner as the policy was in
force as on the date of the accident and pay the entire
compensation amount of to petitioners along with interest at
the rate of 6% PA.
26. APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION:
The claimants No.1 to 5 are being the wife, children and
parents of the deceased. Hence, they are entitled for
SCCH-25 21 MVC No.6742/202340:15:15:15:15 ratio respectively in the total compensation
with accrued interest. On deposit of compensation,
the claimants No.1, 4 and 5 are entitled to withdraw 50% of
their share and remaining share shall be invested as FD in
any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years. The entire
share amount of the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 shall be invested as
FD in any nationalized bank till they attain the age of
majority. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 partly in
Affirmative.
27. Issue No.4:- In view of my findings to the above
issues, the claimants are entitled for the compensation at the
at rate of 6% P.A. from the respondent No.1. Accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The claim petition filed by claimants
under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 is allowed in part.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay
total compensation to the tune of
Rs.34,61,600/- (Rupees Thirty four Lakhs
Sixty One Thousand and Six Hundred Only)
together interest @ 6% P.A from the date of
petition till realization.
The respondent No.1 is liable to pay
the compensation to the claimants and
SCCH-25 22 MVC No.6742/2023directed to deposit the same within 60 days
from the date of this judgment, after
deducting any amount paid as the interim
compensation
The petitioner No.1 to 5 are entitled
for 40:15:15:15:15 ratio respectively in the
total compensation with accrued interest.
On deposit of compensation,
the claimants No.1, 4 and 5 are entitled to
withdraw 50% of their share and remaining
share shall be invested as FD in any
nationalized bank for a period of 3 years.
The entire share amount of the
petitioner Nos.2 & 3 shall be invested as FD
in any nationalized bank till they attain the
age of majority.
All the interim application if any
pending stands disposed off.
The advocate fee of Rs.1,000/- fixed.
Draw Decree accordingly.
(Directly typed and computerized by the stenographer, corrected by me and then
pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 23rd day of June, 2025).
(Raghavendra. R.)
XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT,
Bangalore.
SCCH-25 23 MVC No.6742/2023
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined for the Petitioner/s:
PW.1 : Smt. Rekha
List of documents exhibited for the Petitioner/s:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR and complaint Ex.P2 True copy of Spot mahazar Ex.P3 True copy of Seizure mahazar 2 in nos Ex.P4 True copy of Spot sketch Ex.P5 True copy of IMV report Ex.P6 True copy of Inquest report Ex.P7 True copy of PM report Ex.P8 True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P9 Notarized copy of Adhaar card of petitioners No.1 1 to 3 Ex.P10 Notarized copy of Adhaar card of petitioners No.4 and 5 and deceased (3 in nos) Ex.P11 Death certificate Ex.P12 Notarized copy of Birth certificate of petitioners No.2 and 3
List of witnesses examined for the respondent/s:
— NIL —
List of documents exhibited for the Respondent/s:
— NIL —
(Raghavendra. R.)
XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT,
Bangalore.
Digitally signed by
RAMACHANDRAPPA
RAMACHANDRAPPA RAGHAVENDRA
RAGHAVENDRA
Date: 2025.06.24
10:55:46 +0530