Bangalore District Court
Sulochana vs Magma Hdi Gen Ins Co Ltd on 1 August, 2025
KABC020084962023
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.1818/2023
Dated this 1st day of August, 2025
Petitioners: 1. Sulochana W/o Late H.D.
Panchakshariah,
Aged about 61 years,
2. Vidyalatha H.P. D/o Late H.D.
Panchakshariah,
Aged about 37 years,
Both are residing at No.127,
Hindisikere Village,
Kote Nayakanahalli Post,
Tiptur Rural & Taluk,
Tumakuru District - 572 201.
3. H.P. Shashikumar S/o Late H.D.
Panchakshariah,
Aged about 42 years,
Residing at No.1469,
8th Block, SMV Layout,
2 MVC No.1818/2023
Viswaneedam Post,
Bengaluru - 560 091.
Petitioners No.1 and 2 are camping
at present in the house of petitioner
No.3 at Bengaluru, who is the son
and brother of petitioners No.1 and
2 respectively.
(Sri T. C. Mallikarjuna Swamy,
Advocate)
V/s
Respondents: 1. Magma HDI General Insurance Co.
Ltd., by its Manager,
No.36, First Floor,
HMJC Tower, J.C. Road,
Bengaluru - 560 002.
(Insurer of Royal Enfield motorcycle
bearing Reg. No.KA-44-Y-7674
Policy
No.P0023200001/4113/631412,
for the period from 18-08-2022 to
17-08-2023)
(Sri V.R. Muralidhara, Advocate)
2. Darshan P. S/o Prahalad Kumar,
No.1386, 11th Cross,
Gurappanakatte, Tiptur Town,
Tumakuru District - 572 201.
(Owner of Royal Enfield motorcycle
bearing Reg. No.KA-44-Y-7674)
(Ex-parte)
3 MVC No.1818/2023
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-
from the respondents, on account of death of H.D.
Panchaksharaiah, who is husband of petitioner No.1 and
father of petitioners No.2 and 3, in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 26-10-2022 at about 4.00 p.m., one Jayashankaraiah
and the deceased Panchaksharaiah had been to Tiptur Town
on personal work, on the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-44-J-
8499, as rider and pillion rider. After finishing the work, when
they were returning to their village through NH-206 road,
slowly and cautiously, on the left side of the road, by
observing all the traffic rules and regulations and reached
near Hindisikere Gate, the rider of said motorcycle by
observing the front and rear side vehicles in the mirror,
switching on the right side indicator and also indicating by
hand so as to take right turn to their village and took right
4 MVC No.1818/2023turn and almost crossed the road and was about to enter
Hindisikere Gate, at that time the rider of the Royal Enfield
motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-44-Y-7674, came in high
speed, in rash and negligent manner, without observing the
signal being given by the rider of motorcycle bearing Reg.
No.KA-44-J-8499 and dashed to the left rear side of the said
motorcycle. Due to the said impact, the rider and pillion rider
of the said motorcycle fell down and sustained grievous
injuries. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was
shifted through 108 ambulance to hospital for treatment and
when the ambulance reached the Kardi village, the deceased
succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident.
Earlier to the accident, the deceased was working as
agriculturist and also doing vegetable and flower business
and was earning Rs.40,000/- to Rs.60,000/- 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 Tiptur Rural Police have registered
5 MVC No.1818/2023the case against the rider of the said Royal Enfield motorcycle
for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and
304(A) of I.P.C. The respondent No.1 is the insurer and
respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence,
they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to
the petitioners. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition
and award compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with interest.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the
respondent No.1 has appeared through its counsel and filed
the written statement. Whereas, the respondent No.2 did
not choose to appear and remained absent. Hence, the
respondent No.2 is placed as ex-parte.
4. The respondent No.1 in its written statement has
denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has denied
the issuance of policy bearing No.P0023200001/4113/631412
in favour of respondent No.2 in respect of motorcycle bearing
No.KA-44-Y-7674 and its validity, since it is not been
6 MVC No.1818/2023
confirmed by the concerned policy issuing office. It has
contended that, the petition is bad for non compliance of
provision under Sections 134(C) and 158(6) of Motor Vehicles
Act. Further it is contended that, the petition is bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties, the owner and insurer of the
motorcycle bearing No.KA-44-J-8499 which involved in the
alleged accident are not made as parties to the above
proceedings, they are the proper and necessary parties to the
above proceedings to adjudicate the controversy involved
between the parties. It has denied the occurrence, mode of
the accident and involvement of the vehicle bearing No.KA-
44-Y-7674 as alleged in the claim petition. It has contended
that, the respondent No.2 had been willfully entrusted his
vehicle to a person who did not possess valid and effective
driving licence as on the date of accident and thereby
committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy and
also violation of Section 149(2) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Further it is contended that, the alleged accident has not
7 MVC No.1818/2023
occurred in the manner as pleaded by the petitioners, but,
the same is occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the
rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-44-J-8499, who
suddenly took his vehicle on right side without any
signal/indication, as such contributed more negligence for
causing the alleged accident. It has denied the age, income
and avocation of the deceased. Further, it has sought
permission to contest even on behalf of respondent No.2, as
per Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It seeks protection
under Section 147 and 149 of Motor Vehicles Act. The
compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. For
the above denials and contentions, it prayed for dismissal of
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 H.D. Panchaksharaiah, has
8 MVC No.1818/2023succumbed to the injuries sustained in
vehicular accident, alleged to have been
occurred on 26-10-2022 at about 4.00
p.m., near Hindisikere Gate, NH-206,
Kasaba Hobli, Tiptur Taluk, Tumakuru
District, due to the rash and negligent
riding of the rider of the Royal Enfield
motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-44-Y-
7674 ?
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.3 has
got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 9 documents
as Ex.P.1 to 9 and closed their side. On the other hand, the
9 MVC No.1818/2023
respondent No.1 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:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioners that, on
26-10-2022 at about 4.00 p.m., one Jayashankaraiah and the
deceased Panchaksharaiah had been to Tiptur Town on
personal work, on the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-44-J-
8499, as rider and pillion rider. After finishing the work,
when they were returning to their village through NH-206
road, slowly and cautiously, on the left side of the road, by
10 MVC No.1818/2023
observing all the traffic rules and regulations and took right
turn towards their village and almost crossed the road and
were about to enter Hindisikere Gate, at that time the rider
of offending Royal Enfield motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-
44-Y-7674, came in high speed, in rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the left rear side of the
motorcycle of the deceased. Due to the said impact, the
deceased fell down on the road, sustained grievous injuries
and succumbed to said injuries on the way to hospital.
Further it is contended that, earlier to the accident, the
deceased was working as agriculturist and also doing
vegetable and flower business and was earning Rs.40,000/-
to Rs.60,000/- 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
11 MVC No.1818/2023
averments made in the petition. Further, in support of their
oral evidence, the petitioners have got marked total 9
documents as Ex.P.1 to 9. 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 is true copy of charge-sheet, Ex.P.4 is true
copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P.5 is true copy of post-mortem
report, Ex.P.6 are RTC extracts (total 3) and Ex.P.7 to 9 are
notarized copy of Aadhar cards of Petitioners No.1 to 3.
11. On meticulously going through the above police
documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 5, prima-facie it reveals that,
the alleged accident has taken place due to rash and
negligent riding of the rider of offending Royal Enfield
motorcycle bearing No.KA-44-Y-7674 and dashing the same
to the left rare side of the motorcycle of the deceased.
Further it reveals that, due to said impact the deceased has
fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries on his
head and other parts of the body and succumbed to said
injuries, on the way to Hospital. The investigation officer in
12 MVC No.1818/2023
his final report/charge-sheet, marked as Ex.P.3, has clearly
stated that, the said accident is caused due to rash and
negligent riding of the rider of offending Royal Enfield
motorcycle bearing No.KA-44-Y-7674 and the deceased has
succumbed to grievous injuries sustained in the said
accident, on the way to hospital.
12. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that, in the present
case, the date, time and place of accident, issuance of
insurance policy by the respondent No.1 in respect of
offending Royal Enfield motorcycle bearing No.KA-44-Y-7674
and its validity as on the date of accident, are not in dispute.
Further, the above oral and documentary evidence placed
on record by the petitioner has remained undisputed by the
owner of offending vehicle/Respondent No.2, as he did not
choose to appear and contest the case of the petitioner.
Whereas, the respondent No.1 insurance company has
specifically denied the above averred facts and
circumstances of the accident and taken specific defence
13 MVC No.1818/2023
that, the offending Royal Enfield motorcycle bearing No.KA-
44-Y-7674 was not at all involved in the alleged accident and
the same has been falsely implicated by the petitioners in
collusion with the rider, owner and jurisdictional police, in
order to get unlawful gain from the respondent No.1
insurance company. Further it is contended that, the alleged
accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the
rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-44-J-8499, who
suddenly took his vehicle on right side without giving any
signal/indication, as such contributed more in the cause of
alleged accident. But, the respondent No.1 has failed to
prove the said contentions. The respondent No.1 has neither
adduced any evidence, nor it has produced any document to
show that, the accident in question has occurred due to rash
and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle bearing
Reg. No.KA-44-J-8499 and there was no fault on the part of
the rider of offending Royal Enfield motorcycle. Further, the
respondents No.1 has not produced any rebuttal evidence to
14 MVC No.1818/2023
disprove the oral and documentary evidence placed on
record by the petitioners. Even, it has not stepped into
witness box to depose the contentions taken in its written
statement 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 riding of the rider of offending
Royal Enfield motorcycle bearing No.KA-44-Y-7674 and
dashing the same to the motorcycle of the deceased.
Though, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has cross-
examined P.W.1 in length, nothing worth has been elicited
from his mouth which creates doubt on the veracity of his
evidence or establishes that, the said accident has occurred
due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the
motorcycle of the deceased or there was any contributory
negligence on his part in the cause of accident.
15 MVC No.1818/2023
13. Further, the Ex.P.4 spot mahazar also clearly speaks
that, the said accident has occurred near Hindisikere Gate,
NH-206, Kasaba Hobli, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District, due to
dashing of offending Royal Enfield motorcycle bearing
No.KA-44-Y-7674 to the left rare portion of the motorcycle
bearing Reg. No.KA-44-J-8499 of the deceased. Further, the
accident is not caused due to any mechanical defects in the
vehicles involved in the accident. When the accident was not
caused due to the any mechanical defects in the offending
vehicle and there was no negligence on the part of the rider
of the motorcycle 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 riding
of the rider of offending Royal Enfield motorcycle. There is
absolutely no rebuttal evidence placed on record by the
respondent No.1 and even nothing is elicited in the cross-
examination of P.W.1 to show that, the said accident has
occurred due to negligence on the part of the rider of the
16 MVC No.1818/2023
motorcycle bearing No.KA-44-J-8499 or there was any
contributory negligence on his part in the cause of accident.
The investigation officer in his final Ex.P.3 final
report/charge-sheet has clearly stated that, the accident in
question is taken place due to rash and negligent riding of
the rider of offending Royal Enfield motorcycle bearing
No.KA-44-Y-7674. Admittedly, the said final report/charge-
sheet has not been challenged by the owner or the rider of
offending vehicle. In such circumstances, there is no
impediment to believe the final report of the investigation
officer and other police records, regarding the date, time
and place of accident, involvement of the offending vehicle,
rash and negligent riding of the rider of offending vehicle
and injuries caused to the deceased in the said accident.
14. Further, the Ex.P.5 Post-motem report, clearly speaks
that, the deceased Panchaksharaiah has died due to brain
stem herniation and massive bleeding as a result of head
17 MVC No.1818/2023
injury sustained in the road traffic accident. The
investigation officer in the final report/charge-sheet, which
is marked as Ex.P.3 has clearly stated that, the said accident
has taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the rider
of offending Royal Enfield motorcycle bearing No.KA-44-Y-
7674. Admittedly, the said final report/charge-sheet has not
been challenged by the owner or rider of the offending
Royal Enfield motorcycle bearing No.KA-44-Y-7674. 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 Royal Enfield motorcycle
bearing No.KA-44-Y-7674 in the accident, negligent riding of
the rider of offending vehicle, injuries caused to deceased
Panchaksharaiah in the said accident and the cause of his
death.
18 MVC No.1818/2023
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
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.”
19 MVC No.1818/2023
17. 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 H.D. Panchaksharaiah has
succumbed to grievous injuries sustained in a motor vehicle
accident occurred on 26-10-2022 at about 4.00 p.m., near
Hindisikere Gate, NH-206, Kasaba Hobli, Tiptur Taluk,
Tumakur District, due to rash and negligent riding of the
rider of offending Royal Enfield motorcycle bearing No.KA-
44-Y-7674. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in Affirmative.
18. Issue No.2: While answering above issue, for the
reasons stated therein, this Court has come to conclusion
that, the petitioners have successfully proved through
cogent and corroborative evidence that, the accident has
taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of
offending Royal Enfield motorcycle bearing No.KA-44-Y-7674
and due to said impact the deceased H.D. Panchaksharaiah
20 MVC No.1818/2023
has sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to said
injuries on the way to hospital. 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, which are marked as Ex.P.7 to 9.
The said documents clearly goes to show that, the petitioner
No.1 is wife and petitioners No.2 and 3 are children of the
deceased H.D. Panchaksharaiah. On the other hand, the
relationship of the petitioners with the deceased H.D.
Panchaksharaiah is not specifically denied by the
respondent No.1 and even there is no rebuttal evidence
placed on record with respect to same. In such
circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the
documents produced by the petitioners and hold that, the
petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased H.D.
Panchaksharaiah.
21 MVC No.1818/2023
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
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
22 MVC No.1818/2023
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
oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the
petitioners clearly establishes that, the petitioners are the
legal representatives of the deceased and they were
depending on the deceased. The dependency does not only
mean financial dependency. Even if the dependency is a
relevant criterion to claim compensation for loss of
23 MVC No.1818/2023
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.
i) Age and income of the deceased : The
petitioners have averred that, the age of deceased as on the
date of accident was 61 years. To substantiate this point, the
petitioners have produced the post-mortem report of the
deceased, which is marked as Ex.P.5, wherein the age of the
deceased is mentioned as 70 years. Therefore, as on the
date of accident the age of the deceased was about 70
years. The petitioners have stated that, as on the date of
accident the deceased was hale and healthy and he was
working as an agriculturist and also doing vegetable and
24 MVC No.1818/2023
flower business and was earning Rs.40,000/- to Rs.60,000/-
per month. To substantiate the same, they have produced
RTC extract (total 3), which are marked as Ex.P.6. But, the
petitioners have not produced any document to show that,
the deceased H.D. Panchaksharaiah was doing vegetable
and flower business and was earning Rs.40,000/- to
Rs.60,000/- 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,
25 MVC No.1818/2023
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
2022. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased as per
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 at Rs.1,86,000/-.
ii) Future prospects: As on the date of accident the
deceased was aged about 70 years. 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 not
entitled for future prospects of the deceased.
iii) The deduction of personal expenses and
calculating the multiplier: The family of the deceased
consist of 3 persons i.e., petitioners No.1 to 3. The total
26 MVC No.1818/2023
number of the dependents of the deceased are three.
Therefore, deduction towards the personal expenses of
deceased is taken as 1/3rd of the total income, which comes
to Rs.62,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd out of total
income, towards the personal expenses of deceased, the
annual income of the deceased is held as Rs.1,24,000/-.
iv) As on the date of death, the age of the deceased
was 70 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 5. Accordingly, the compensation under the
head of loss of dependency is held as Rs.1,24,000/- x 5 =
Rs.6,20,000/-.
v) Compensation under conventional heads: In
the present case, admittedly the petitioner No.1 is wife and
petitioners No.2 and 3 are children of deceased H.D.
Panchaksharaiah. Hence, the petitioners No.1 to 3 are
27 MVC No.1818/2023
entitled for compensation under the head of spousal and
parental 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 and parental consortium comes to
Rs.48,000/- each to petitioners No.1 to 3 and funeral
expenses comes to Rs.18,000/-.
28 MVC No.1818/2023
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. 6,20,000-00
2. Loss of spousal and Rs. 1,44,000-00
parental consortium
3. Loss of estate Rs. 18,000-00
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000-00
Total Rs. 8,00,000-00
Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that,
the petitioners are entitled for compensation of
Rs.8,00,000/-, 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 insurer and respondent No.2 is the
owner of offending Royal Enfield motorcycle bearing No.KA-
44-Y-7674. The insurance policy bearing
No.P0023200001/4113/631412, issued by the respondent
29 MVC No.1818/2023
No.1, in respect of offending Royal Enfield Motorcycle
bearing No.KA-44-Y-7674 was valid from 18-08-2022 to 17-
08-2023. As such, the said policy was valid as on the date of
accident i.e. 26-10-2022. 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.2.
Further, the evidence placed on record by the petitioners
clearly establishes that, due to rash and negligent riding of
the rider of offending vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-44-Y-7674
the said accident has occurred and the deceased has
succumbed to grievous injuries sustained in the said
accident. In such circumstances, the respondent No.2 being
the owner of said vehicle is vicariously liable to compensate
for the damage caused by the said vehicle. The respondent
No.1 being the insurer of said vehicle is liable to indemnify
the respondent No.2. 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
30 MVC No.1818/2023
respondent No.1 to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
Therefore, for the above stated reasons, holding that, the
petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-,
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of
petition till its realization, from the respondent No.1, 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.8,00,000/- (Rupees
eight lakh only) with interest at the rate
of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till
realisation.
The respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly
and severally liable to pay the above
compensation amount to the
petitioners. However, the primary
31 MVC No.1818/2023liability to pay the compensation
amount is fastened on respondent No.1 –
Insurance Company 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 – 40%
Petitioner No.2 – Daughter – 30%
Petitioner No.3 – Son – 30%
The entire compensation amount
with proportionate interest awarded in
favour of petitioners No.1 to 3, shall be
released in their 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 1st day of August,
2025)(Mohammed Yunus Athani)
Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
32 MVC No.1818/2023
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners
P.W.1: Shashikumar H.P. S/o Late H.D.
Panchaksharaiah
Documents marked on behalf of petitioners
Ex.P.1: True copy of F.I.R.
Ex.P.2: True copy of First Information Statement
Ex.P.3: True copy of Charge-sheet
Ex.P.4: True copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.5: True copy of Post-mortem Report
Ex.P.6 : RTC Extracts (total 3)
Ex.P.7 to Notarized copy of Aadhar Cards of
9: Petitioners No.1 to 3
Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents
-Nil-
Documents marked on behalf of respondents
-Nil-
(Mohammed Yunus Athani)
Member, MACT, Bengaluru.