Bangalore District Court
Malika vs Raju K.M on 10 January, 2025
KABC020200712021
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES
BENGALURU (SCCH-18)
Dated: This the 10th day of January 2025
Present: DHANESH MUGALI
B.Com., LL.B.,(Spl.)
III ADDL. JUDGE &
MEMBER, MACT
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.73/2022
Petitioners 1. Smt.Malika,
Wife of Late Syed Yakub,
Aged about 57 years,
2. Syed Shafiulla,
Son of Late Syed Yakub,
Aged about 39 years,
Residing at No.222,
2nd Cross,
Akbari Masjid,
Chamundinagar,
R.T. Nagar,
Bengaluru-560 032.
3. Rajiya Sultana,
Daughter of Late Syed Yakub,
Aged about 38 years,
Residing at No.354,
2 SCCH-18 MVC 73/2022
Venkateshappa Building,
Near Water Tank,
Veerasandra, Electronic City,
Anekal, Benglauru Urban
District- 560 100.
4. Reshma Aliya,
Daughter of late Syed Yakub,
Wife of Mohammed Rizwan,
Aged about 37 years,
5. Shabana Sultana,
Daughter of Late Syed Yakub,
Aged about 33 years,
Residing at No.116,
1st Main, 5th Cross, D.
Ramaiah Building, Dinnur,
Bengaluru-560 032.
6. Rukshana Sulthana,
Daughter of Late Syed Yakub,
Aged about 31 years,
The petitioners No.1, 4 and 6
are residing at No.59,
2nd cross, Muniyappa Depot,
Dinnur, R.T.Nagar,
Bengaluru-560 032.
(By Pleader Shri
Parameshwarappa C.)
V/s
Respondents 1. Shri Raju K.M.,
Son of Late Munishamappa,
Aged about 53 years,
Residing at No.25/1,
33rd Main Road,
Behind Siddeshwara Talkies,
3 SCCH-18 MVC 73/2022
Sarakki Garden, 6th Phase,
J.P. Nagar,
Bengaluru-560 078.
(By Pleader Shri Shahnawaz
Mateen Mamadapur)
2. Shriram General Insurance
Company Limited,
No.48, 3rd floor, SS Corner
Building, Hospital Road,
Next to Kamath Hotel,
Shivaji Nagar,
Bengaluru-560 001.
Represented by its Manager.
(By Pleader Shri A.N.Hegde)
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this petition under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming
compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- for the death of Syed
Yakub in a road traffic accident.
The brief facts of the petitioners’ case are as
under:
2. That on 28.3.2020 at about 1.30 a.m. Syed
Yakub was crossing the road near Palace Guttahalli
Bus stop towards City, T.Chowdaiah Road,
Bengaluru City, at that time, driver of the Eicher
Goods Vehicle bearing No.KA-05-AF-5639 came with
high speed in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against Syed Yakub. Due to which, deceased
4 SCCH-18 MVC 73/2022fell down and succumbed to grievous injuries.
Thereafter, post mortem was conducted and dead
body was handed over to the petitioners.
Subsequently, the petitioners have spent huge
amount towards funeral and obsequies ceremonies
and other incidental expenses.
3. It is further stated in the petition that, prior
to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy,
was aged about 65 years and working as a tailor and
earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to the untimely
death of the deceased, life of the petitioners became
dark, miserable and depressed and put to great
financial hardship.
4. It is alleged in the petition that, the accident
was occurred due to the negligent act of the driver of
the Eicher Goods Vehicle bearing registration No.KA-
05-AF-5639. In this regard, criminal case was
registered against him, in Crime No.18/2020, for the
offences punishable under section 279 and 304(A) of
I.P.C. and Section 134(A & B) R/W Section 187 of
IMV Act by the jurisdictional police on the basis of
the first information received in this regard. As such,
the respondent No.1 being the owner and the
respondent No.2 being the insurer are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation to the
petitioners. Hence, this petition.
5 SCCH-18 MVC 73/2022
5. After service of the notice, the respondents
have appeared through their respective counsel and
filed written statements.
6. The respondent No.1, in the written
statement has not seriously disputed the accident
and the death of Syed Yakub. Further contended
that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence
on the deceased and not on the part of the driver of
the Goods Vehicle. Further stated that he is the
owner of the offending vehicle and the respondent
No.2 is the insurer of the said vehicle and the policy
was valid at the time of accident. Further contended
that as alleged in the complaint and the FIR there is
no evidence to prove that Oblesh was the driver of
the vehicle at the time of accident. This respondent
has contended that the compensation claimed by the
petitioner is highly exhorbitant and without any
basis. With all these main grounds, prayed to
dismiss the petition, against the respondent No.1.
7. The respondent No.2 has admitted about the
issuance of the policy in respect of vehicle bearing
No.KA-05-AF-5639 and the same is valid on the date
of accident. Further contended that, alleged accident
occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, who
was crossing the road, where there is no zebra cross.
He is not seeing oncoming vehicle and straight away
6 SCCH-18 MVC 73/2022
tried to cross the road, it is clearly shown in the
sketch. There is no negligence on the part of the
driver of the Goods vehicle. Further contended that
police have filed charge sheet against one Oblesh M.,
who is the driver of the Goods vehicle bearing No.KA-
05-AF-5639 u/s 3 (1) R/W Section 180 of M.V. Act.
In the reply notice, the owner of the vehicle admitted
that Oblesh not having any DL and the police have
filed charge sheet against owner of the vehicle also
as A2. It clearly shows the driver of the offending
vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence.
Further contended that, the compensation claimed
by the petitioners is highly excessive, exorbitant and
exaggerated. And stated that, neither the owner of
the vehicle nor the jurisdictional police have
complied the mandatory provisions of Section 134(c)
and S.158(6) of the M.V. Act in furnishing the better
particulars. It is also denied the age, avocation,
income of the deceased and also relationship with
the petitioners. With all these main grounds, prayed
to dismiss the petition, against the respondent No.2.
8. On the basis of the rival pleadings of both the
parties, this court has framed the following issues:
7 SCCH-18 MVC 73/2022
ISSUES
1) Whether the petitioners prove that
Syed Yakub son of Late Syed Yousuf
died due to the injuries sustained by
him in a motor vehicle accident that
was taken place on 28.3.2020 at about
1.20 a.m. near near Palace Guttahalli
Bus stop, T. Chowdaiah Road,
Bengaluru City, due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the
Eicher Goods Vehicle bearing
registration No.KA-05-AF-5639 in an
actionable negligence?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled
for compensation as prayed for? If so, at
what rate? From whom?
3) What order or award?
9. In order to substantiate the case of the
petitioners, petitioner No.4 was examined as PW1
and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P17,
Ex.P19 and Ex.P20. Further one witness by name
Arif was examined as PW2 and got marked the
document at Ex.P18 & Ex.P21.
10. On the other hand, to prove the defences of
the respondent No.2, has examined Legal Manager
Senior Executive of the insurance company as RW1
and got marked the documents at Ex.R1 & Ex.R2.
8 SCCH-18 MVC 73/2022
Further placed the evidence of respondent No.1 by
name Raju K.M. as RW2 and got marked the
documents at Ex.R3 to Ex.R6. Apart from his
evidence one witness by name A.Rammohan was
examined as RW3.
11. Heard arguments of both sides. At the time
of arguments
12. My findings to the above issues as follows:
Issue No.1: Partly Affirmative.
Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative
Issue No.3: As per final order,
for the following:
R E A S O N S
ISSUE NO.1:-
13. It is the specific case of the petitioners that,
due to the actionable negligence on the part of the
driver of the Eicher Goods Vehicle bearing No.KA-05-
AF-5639, the alleged accident had taken place.
Consequently, Syed Yakub had died in the said
accident. As such, the petitioners have filed this
claim petition against the respondents.
14. On the other hand, the respondent No.1
strongly contended that, there was no accident
9 SCCH-18 MVC 73/2022
caused by his vehicle. As per complaint and FIR there
is no evidence to prove that Oblesh was the driver of
the vehicle at the time of accident and accident has
been caused by the vehicle bearing No.KA-05-5639.
15. Per contra the respondent No.2 has
contended that police have filed the charge sheet
against Obalesh M., who is the driver of the goods
vehicle bearing No.KA-05-AF-5639 under section 3(1)
R/W 180 of M.V. Act. In reply to 133 notice owner of
the vehicle Raju has also admitted that Obalesh has
not having any D.L. on the date of accident. It clearly
shows that the driver had no valid and effective
driving licence as on the date of the accident.
16. On the basis of rival contention of both the
parties, first of all, the petitioners have to place
satisfactory evidence on the touch stone of
preponderance of probabilities against the driver of
the Eicher Goods Vehicle in question.
17. The petitioners in order to prove their case,
petitioner No.3 Reshma Aliya examined as PW1. In
her examination-in-chief by way of affidavit has
reiterated the averments made in the petition. The
petitioner in support of her oral evidence has relied
10 SCCH-18 MVC 73/2022
upon Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. Ex.P1- true copy of the F.I.R.
in Crime No.18/2020 of Sadhashivanagara Traffic
Police Station. Ex.P2-true copy of the first
information statement given by Thandaveshwara S.,
Ex.P3-true copy of the spot sketch. Ex.P4-Inquest
Ex.P5-true copy of PM report Ex.P6-notice u/s 133 of
MV Act. Ex.P8 Reply to police notice u/s 133 of MV
Act, Ex.P8-true copy of IMV report, Ex.P9-Scientific
investigation report and Ex.P10 & Ex.P20-true copy
of the charge sheet in Crime No.18/2020 of
Sadhashivanagara Traffic Police. Added to this, the
petitioners in support of their evidence placed the
evidence of eye witness by name Arif as PW2. PW2
has reiterated the averments as stated in his affidavit
evidence. He also supports the case of the petitioners.
He has placed Aadhar card marked at Ex.P18 &
Ex.P21-statement of PW2.
18. On perusal of the police documents, it could
be seen that, based upon the first information
statement given by Thadaveshwara S., who is H.C. of
Sadhashivanagara Traffic Police Station, the S.H.O.
of Sadhashivanagara Traffic Police has registered the
case against the driver of the Eicher Goods Vehicle
bearing No.KA-05-AF-5639 for the offences
punishable under Sections 279 & 304(A) of I.P.C.
11 SCCH-18 MVC 73/2022
Upon investigation, the I.O. has filed charge sheet
against one Obalesh, who being the driver of the
Eicher Goods Vehicle bearing No.KA-05-AF-5639
alleging that he has committed the offences
punishable under section 279 & 304(A) of IPC and
Section 134(A & B), 187, 3 (1) 181,180 of IMV Act.
19. Per contra, respondent No.1 examined as
RW1. He has strongly disputed that as on the date of
accident one Ramamohan A. @ Ramu was the driver
of the offending vehicle and Sadhashivanagara Traffic
police have wrongly implicated his vehicle in the
criminal case in CC No.2432/2020 and there is no
evidence to prove that one Obalesh was the driver of
the vehicle. In support of his evidence he has placed
policy copy, D.L. of Ramamohan, witness statement
of Ashwanarayan & witness statement of Arif as
Ex.R3 to Ex.R6. To prove his contention, he has
examined A.Ramamohan as RW3. He has also stated
that, he is the driver of the goods vehicle bearing
No.KA-05-5639 as on the date of accident for last 7 to
8 years.
20. Under these circumstances, it is necessary
to consider who is the driver of the Eicher Goods
vehicle bearing No.KA-05-5639 as on the date of
accident. Firstly, on perusal of Ex.P7 in reply to
12 SCCH-18 MVC 73/2022
notice u/s 133 of M.V. Act, the respondent No.1 has
clearly mentioned the name of the driver “Obaleshu
son of M.Subramaniyam, 33 years and also
mentioned he has no D.L. and also written
M.Obalesu was driving the said vehicle on the date of
accident. In the cross-examination, RW2 has
admitted that he has not given complaint to the
higher authorities that as on the date of accident
Obalesh was not driver of the goods vehicle.
21.Further in the cross-examination of RW3, he
has admitted that he has not given any complaint to
higher authorities about wrong mention of the name
of the driver and police have not arrested him
pertaining to this case.
22. On going through the Ex.P7 and the cross-
examination of RW2 & RW3, it is crystal clear that
Obalesh was the driver of the offending vehicle as on
the date of accident. If Obalesh was not the driver
on the date of accident, why the respondent No.1 has
put his signature for Ex.P7, otherwise he would have
given complaint to higher authorities. Added to this,
Obalesh also facing criminal case filed against him in
CC 2432/2020, if he was not the driver and
Rammohan was the driver, he would have given
13 SCCH-18 MVC 73/2022
complaint to the higher authorities. From the oral
evidence of RW1 & RW3 and coupled with
documents, it is clear that Obalesh was the driver of
the Eicher goods vehicle bearing No.KA-05-5639 and
he had no valid driving licence. Considering the
above facts, now it is evident that, it is after thought
of respondent No.1 to bring the name of Rammohan,
who was examined as RW3 as the driver of the Eicher
Goods Vehicle bearing No.KA-05-5639.
23. In the light of the discussions held above, it
is crystal clear that, the accident in question had
taken place due to the actionable negligence on the
part of the driver(Obalesh) of the Eicher Goods
Vehicle bearing No.KA-05-AF-5639. In the said
accident, Syed Yakub succumbed to the injuries.
Hence, I am answering the Issue No.1 in the
Affirmative.
ISSUE No.2;
24. Now coming to the point of quantum of
compensation for which, the petitioners are entitled
is concerned, every legal representative who suffers on
account of the death of a person, due to a motor vehicle
accident, should have remedy for realization of
compensation. Since in the death case, the legal heirs
are the claimants. In the case on hand, the
14 SCCH-18 MVC 73/2022
relationship of deceased with the petitioners is not in
dispute. At the same time, the documents produced
by the petitioners, to prove their relationship with the
deceased marked at Ex.P11 to Ex.P17 Aadhar card
and pan card of the petitioners and the deceased,
have not been disputed by the other side. The recitals
of the above documents clearly speak about the
relationship between the petitioners and the
deceased.
25. In the case on hand, no doubt the major
sons of Syed Yakub filed this claim petition.
According to them, they were dependents to the
deceased petitioner during his lifetime. In the cross-
examination PW1 has stated that herself and her
sisters and brother are all married. Here, it is
necessary discuss the point that, father place an
important role in the family. All the children, one or
the other way defendants to their parents whether
they are minors or majors, married or unmarried.
But the percentage of disability may be varied from
one person to another person. During the minority of
the child, dependency is more on the parents. After
the marriage of the children, the percentage of
disability is less on the parents, if compare with the
minor children.
15 SCCH-18 MVC 73/2022
26. In the case on hand, by looking to the age
criteria though they are major sons, they could have
dependents to their parents not only economically,
but in connection with love and affection during his
lifetime. Hence, the petitioners can be presumed as
dependents to their father during his lifetime in the
absence of contra materials from the other side. In
this regard, relied the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court (DB), in National Insurance Company
Lilmited V/S Birender and Others stated that, a major
and earning son has a right to claim compensation under
Motor Vehicle Act. In this case, by referring the case of
Manjuri Bera, stated that, even if there is no loss of
dependency, the claimant if he was a legal representative
will be entitled to compensation. 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.”
27. The petitioners herein, to prove the actual
age of the deceased as on the date of the accident,
have not placed any document. On perusal of P.M.
report marked at Ex.P5, the age of the deceased was
mentioned as 65 years. The said document remained
16 SCCH-18 MVC 73/2022
unquestioned by the other side. Hence, it is safely to
be considered that, as on the date of the accident, the
deceased was aged about 65 years. For his age,
multiplier ‘7’ is applicable as per the ratio in “Sarala
Verma” Case.
28. In connection with the work of the
deceased, in the main petition, and also in the
evidence of PW1 stated that, deceased was doing
tailoring work and used to earn income of
Rs.20,000/- per month. But in support of definite
income of the deceased, there is no iota of
documents. In such a situation, as per law notional
income has to be taken into consideration. Hence,
the income of the deceased is apt to be taken as
Rs.14,500/- p.m., which will meet the ends of
justice.
29. Another point to be taken in to
consideration herein that, as per the petition, 6
persons were depending on the earning of the
deceased. In this regard, about the deduction of the
personal and living expenses is concerned, the
principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme
Court in Sarala Verma Case at para No.14 is to be
considered.
17 SCCH-18 MVC 73/2022
30. Apart from this, it is also relevant to
discuss, that the Honourable Supreme Court in the
decision reported in,
2018 SAR (Civil) 81. National Insurance
Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi and others,
” It was observed that, “While determining the
income, an addition of 50 per cent of actual salary
to the income of the deceased towards future
prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job
and was below the age of 40 years, should be made.
The addition should be 30 per cent, if the age of the
deceased was between 40 and 50 years. In case the
deceased was between the age of 50 and 60 years,
the addition should be 15 per cent. Actual salary
should be read as actual salary less tax. In case the
deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an
addition of 40 per cent of the established income
should be the warrant where the deceased was below
the age of 40 year. An addition of 25 per cent where
the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years.
An addition of 25 per cent where the deceased was
between the age of 40 and 50 years and 10 per cent
where the deceased was between the age of 50-60
years should be regarded as the necessary method
of computation. The established income means the
income minus the tax component. ”
31. Having considered the above as per law
laid down in the above case, in connection with the
deduction of personal and living expenses is
concerned, it is settled that, “where the deceased was
18 SCCH-18 MVC 73/2022
married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of
the deceased should be one third (1/3rd) where the number of
dependent family members is 2 to 3, 1/4 th where the number of
dependent family member is 4 to 6 and one fifth (1/5 th ) where
the number of the dependant family members exceeds six.” In
the light of the above proposition, in the case on
hand, 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal
and living expenses out of the total compensation. In
the present case, deceased was aged about 65 years,
as on the date of the accident. For this age
multiplier “7” is applicable. And by relying on the
aforesaid principle laid down in the Pranay Sethi’s
case with respect to the age of the deceased and also
on going through the nature of the occupation
forthcoming in the petition averments, it is evident
that, the deceased herein is not having permanent
job and accurate income for consideration.
Therefore, by considering the earning of the deceased
as Rs.14,500/- per month. And Rs.1,74,000/- per
year. And 1/4th has to be deducted towards
personal and living expenses in the income of the
deceased. Thus, net loss income comes to
Rs.1,30,500/-(Rs.1,74,000-Rs.43,500).This income
has to be multiplied by multiplier “7”. Which comes
to Rs.9,13,500/-.
19 SCCH-18 MVC 73/2022
32. Apart from this, aspect, in connection
with the loss of estate, consortium, and with respect
to the funeral expenses, to calculate the quantum of
the compensation under the aforesaid heads, it is
relevant to note herein the following authority,
2018 SAR (Civil) 81. National Insurance Company
Limited. V/s Pranay Sethi and others,
The Hon’ble Apex Court discussed various aspects
in connection with the claim petition filed by the
claimants for compensation. And also observed
that while determining the claim petition, the
reasonable figures on conventional heads, viz.,
loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral
expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and
Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amount
should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every
three years.
33. By relying upon the above said decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the amount of
Rs.16,500/- is awarded under the head loss of estate
and Rs.16,500/- is awarded towards funeral
expenses and also by placing reliance upon the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2018)
18 SCC 130 between Magma General Insurance
Company Limited v/s Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram &
Others, the amount of Rs.44,000/- each is awarded
20 SCCH-18 MVC 73/2022
to the petitioner No.1 to 6 under the head loss of
consortium.
34. Considering the above facts and
circumstances of the case and for the above reason, I
am of the opinion that, the petitioners are entitled for
total compensation under the following heads.
Compensation heads Compensation
Amount
Towards loss of Rs. 9,13,500-00
dependency
Towards loss of Rs. 2,64,000-00
consortium
Towards loss of estate Rs. 16,500-00
Towards funeral & Rs. 16,500-00
obsequies ceremony
expenses
Total Rs.12,10,500-00
35. Accordingly, the petitioners herein are
entitled to get total compensation of Rs.12,10,500/-
(Rupees twelve lakh ten thousand and five
hundred only), along with the interest at the rate of
6% per annum, as per the proposition laid down by
the Hon’ble High court of Karnataka in MFA No.
103557/2016, Between Sri Ram General Insurance
Company Limited V/S. Lakshmi And Others dated.
21 SCCH-18 MVC 73/2022
20.03.2018. And MFA No.30131/2019 dated.12.5.2020
from the date of petition till its realisation.
LIABILITY:
36. As regards the liability is concerned, it is
the assertion of the petitioner that, due to actionable
negligence on the part of the driver of the Goods
Vehicle bearing registration No.KA-05-AF-5639
alleged accident had taken place. As such, the
respondent No.1 being the owner and the respondent
No.2 being the insurance company of the offending
vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation to the petitioner.
37. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company
has contended that the driver of the offending vehicle
had no valid and effective driving licence as on the
date of accident. Thereby violated the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy. As such,
insurance company is not liable to pay compensation
to the petitioner. To substantiate the same,
respondent No.2 has examined Manager-Legal Claim
as RW1. He has reiterated the contents as averred in
the written statement. He has placed authorisation
letter and policy copy as per Ex.R1 & Ex.R2.
22 SCCH-18 MVC 73/2022
38. In this regard, on going through the charge
sheet submitted by the investigation officer, relevant
provision has been inserted stating that, at the time
of accident the driver of the offending vehicle had no
valid and effective driving licence. To disprove the
contents of the charge sheet and to show that, the
driver had valid D.L. no supportive evidence is
available on record to impeach the recitals of Ex.P10
As already discussed in issue No.1 that the Obalesh
M. was the driver at the time of accident and he had
no valid and effective driving licence. Hence, it is
crystal clear that, there is a clear violation of the
terms and conditions of the policy.
39. During the course of argument the learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 has argued that as
on the date of accident the driver of the offending
vehicle was not having valid licence. It is violation of
terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence,
respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the
compensation to the petitioner and has relied the
judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
in MFA No.3297/2019 between
Smt.Adilakshmamma & Others Vs. Raju B.
23 SCCH-18 MVC 73/2022
40. On the contrary, the counsel for the
petitioners have filed the decisions reported in (2004)
3 Supreme Court Cases 297 between National
Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Swaran Singh and Others. 2)
(2007) 3 Supreme Court Cases 700 between National
Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut 3) (2018) 9
Supreme Court Cases 650 between Shamanna &
Another Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd., & Others.
41. I have gone through the supra decisions,
the common principle laid down in the supra
decisions is that the insurance company has to
satisfy compensation award amount and then recover
it from owner of the vehicle.
42. At this stage, it is relevant to note herein,
the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down
in the following cases.
2) 2018 SCC 208 between Pappu & Others
Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Another
In the aforesaid case it was observed that, where on
adjudication of claim under the Act, the Tribunal arise at a
conclusion that, the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence
in accordance with law with the provision of Section 149(2) R/W
Sub-section 7, the Tribunal can direct that, the insurer is liable
to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other
amount which it has been compelled to pay to the third party
24 SCCH-18 MVC 73/2022
under the award of the Tribunal. In the aforesaid case also,
highlighted about the principle of pay and recovery.
43. On going through the supra decisions, it is
to be noted that to protect the interest of third party,
the principle of pay and recovery is applied.
44. Apart from this, as per the assertion of the
petitioner, insurance policy was valid from
23.1.2020 to 22.1.2021. The accident had occurred
on 28.3.2020. The said fact has not been denied by
the respondent company by placing the insurance
policy as per Ex.R2.
45. In the light of the discussion held above, I
am of the view that, though the respondent No.1
being the owner of the offending vehicle, cannot
escape from his liability to pay compensation to the
petitioner, in view of violation of terms and conditions
of the policy. But, to protect the interest of the
petitioners, it is necessary to direct the respondent
No.2-insurance company to pay compensation to the
petitioners and thereafter to recover the same from
the respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle,
through due process of law. Accordingly, I am
25 SCCH-18 MVC 73/2022
answering the issue No.2 partly in the
Affirmative.
ISSUE No.3:
46. In view of my due discussions on point
Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R
The claim petition filed by the
petitioners U/S 166 of MV Act is hereby
partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for
compensation of Rs.12,10,500/- (Rupees
twelve lakh ten thousand and five
hundred only), along with the interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of deposit.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay
the compensation with interest @ 6% p.a.
from the date of petition till its realization
within two months from the date of this
order, thereafter recover the same from the
respondent No.1/owner of the offending
vehicle.
After deposit of the compensation
amount together with interest, the
26 SCCH-18 MVC 73/2022
petitioner No.1 is entitled the share of 75%
and the petitioner No.2 to 6 are entitled the
share of 5% each.
After deposit of the compensation
amount together with interest of petitioner
No.1, 40% of the amount shall be deposited
in any Nationalized/Scheduled bank of her
choice for a period of 3 years and
remaining 60% shall be released to her
through due process of law.
After deposit of the compensation
amount together with interest of petitioner
No.2 to 6, since the amount is very meagre,
entire amount shall be released to them
through due process of law.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer,
corrected by me and then pronounced in open court
on this the 10th day of January 2025).
(DHANESH MUGALI)
III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
MEMBER MACT & ACJM,
BENGALURU.
27 SCCH-18 MVC 73/2022
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined on petitioner’s side:
PW1 Mrs. Reshma Aliya PW2 Mr.Arif
List of documents exhibited on petitioner’s side:
Ex.P1 FIR Ex.P2 FIS Ex.P3 Spot sketch Ex.P4 Inquest report Ex.P5 P.M. report Ex.P6 Notice u/s 133 of M.V. Act Ex.P7 Reply to notice u/s 133 of M.V. Act Ex.P8 IMV report Ex.P9 Scientific investigation report Ex.P10 Charge sheet Ex.P11 to Ex.P14 Aadhar cards Ex.P15 Pan card Ex.P16 & Ex.P17 Aadhar cards Ex.P18 Aadhar card Ex.P19 Ration card Ex.P20 Charge sheet Ex.P21 Statement of Arif
List of witnesses examined on respondent’ side:
RW1 Yogashree RW2 Raju K.M. RW3 A. Ramamohan
List of documents exhibited on respondent’ side:
Ex.R1 Authorisation letter
Ex.R2 Policy copy
28 SCCH-18 MVC 73/2022
Ex.R3 Policy copy
Ex.R4 D.L.
Ex.R5 Statement of Ashwathnarayana in
CC 2432/2020
Ex.R6 Statement of Arif in CC.
2432/2020
III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
MEMBER MACT & ACJM,
BENGALURU.