[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
Chandrappa vs Nazeer Ahmed on 21 May, 2025
SCCH-23 1 MVC. No.1679/2022
KABC020098752022
IN THE COURT OF XXI ADDL.SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.
(SCCH-23)
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF MAY - 2025
PRESENT: Sri. Shreyansh Doddamani
B.Com. LL.B (Spl)
XXI ADDL. SCJ & ACJM
MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU.
MVC. No.1679/2022
Petitioners : 1. Sri. Chandrappa,
S/o Late Ningegowda,
Aged about 44 years.
2. Smt. Jayalakshmi,
W/o Chandrappa,
Aged about 36 years.
3. Rathan. H.C,
S/o Chandrappa,
Aged about 16 years,
Since minor rep.by his father and
natural guardian Chandrappa.
All are R/at : Hosahalli,
VTC Amruthur,
Tumkur District-572111.
(By Advocate: Smt. Radhamma. M.G)
SCCH-23 2 MVC. No.1679/2022
v/s
Respondents : 1) Sri. Nazeer Ahmed,
S/o Abdul Saddiq,
No.1, NES Colony, Piriyapatna Town
and Taluk, Mysore-571107.
(RC owner of lorry bearing
Reg.No.KA-04-C-2544)
(Exparte)
2) Mohammed Nadim Pasha,
No.599/5, Police Gangappa Road,
Nelamangala,
Bengaluru-562123.
(Policy holder of lorry bearing
Reg.No.KA-04-C-2544)
(By Sri. Syed Khader Nawaz, Adv)
3) HDFC Ergo Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd.,
Regional Office,
No.25/1, 2nd Floor building No.2,
Shankar Narayana Building
M.G.Road, Bengaluru-560001.
(Policy No.2317203664074945856
valid from 07.01.2021 to 06.01.2022)
(By Advocate: Sri. Kiran Pujar)
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed u/s 166 of M.V Act, 1988
seeking compensation for the death caused in a RTA.
2. The case of the petitioners in the nutshell is that in
order to go to school on 24.11.2021 at about 9.20 a.m, the
SCCH-23 3 MVC. No.1679/2022
deceased was riding the Bicycle on the extreme left side on
Hoshalli – Holalagunda Road, when the deceased reached
near Kodihalli, Amruthuru Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur
District by observing all the traffic rules at that time the
driver of lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-04-C-2544 came from
opposite direction with high speed in a rash and negligent
manner so as to endanger human life came to his extreme
right side and dashed to the deceased bicycle. Due to the
impact the deceased fell down and sustained grievous
injuries all over his body. Immediately after the accident he
was shifted to M.M Hospital, Kunigal wherein duty doctors
examined and declared dead on the way to the hospital.
Postmortem was conducted and corpse was handed over to
the family members, who conducted funeral and other
ceremonies and they have spent substantial amount towards
medical expenses, transportation of dead body and funeral
obsequies. It is alleged that at the time of accident the
deceased was student studying in 7th standard and due to
untimely death of the deceased the petitioners life has
become dark. The respondent No.1 & 2 being the owner and
SCCH-23 4 MVC. No.1679/2022
policy holder and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the
offending lorry. The accident was occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending lorry and as such, the
respondent No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the petitioners. Contending the above facts,
they pray to grant for compensation with interest and cost.
3. Notice was duly served to respondent No.1, the
respondent No.1 did not appear before this Tribunal. Hence
she placed exparte.
4. After service of notice, respondent No.2 appeared
through his counsel by filing written statement rather
objections to the main petition contending that the petition
itself is not maintainable either law or on facts. The
respondent No.2 admitted that he is the RC owner of the
lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-04-C-2544 and same was insured
with the respondent No.3. The vehicle is having policy
No.2317203664074945856 and same is valid from
07.01.2021 to 06.01.2022 and same was in force as on the
date of accident. The respondent No.2 contended that in the
SCCH-23 5 MVC. No.1679/2022
month of September 2021, this respondent sold his Goods
vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-C-2544 in favour of respondent
No.1 viz Nazeer Ahmed, the said respondent No.1 got
transferred the vehicle in the month of October-2021 to his
name, but he failed to transfer the insurance policy of the
said vehicle to his name. The ownership of this respondent
over the said lorry was seized immediately after transfer of
the ownership after the registration of the vehicle to the name
of the respondent No.1. That upon the registration of the
vehicle by the RTO in favour of purchaser (transfer) i.e.,
respondent No.1there would be deemed transfer of the
comprehensive insurance policy in favour of the purchaser
under the Amended Section 157 of M.V. Act, without any
bifurcation of third party risk and own damage. If at all the
petitioners are entitled for any compensation, the same has
to be paid by respondent No.1 and 3, as the said vehicle
transferred in the name of respondent No.1. Further denied
all the allegation made in the petition. Hence prayed to
dismiss the petition.
SCCH-23 6 MVC. No.1679/2022
5. The respondent No.3 appeared through his counsel
and filed written statement by contending that the petition is
not maintainable either law or on facts. The respondent No.3
denied the issuance of insurance policy in respect of Lorry
bearing Reg.No.KA-04-C-2544. However the liability if any is
pleaded to be subject to the terms & conditions of the policy.
Non-compliance of section’s 134(c), 158(6) of MV Act is
pleaded. This respondent specifically and empathically
denied the occurrence, mode and manner of accident and
also involvement of the vehicle in the accident. Negligence on
the part of the driver of the lorry is denied by this
respondent. Per contra it is alleged that the accident was
occurred due to negligence on the part of the deceased as he
was proceeding on the road without observing the traffic
rules and regulations. Without prejudice to the said
contention it is averred that the driver of the lorry did not
possess valid & effective DL as on the date of accident.
Despite knowing the said fact the owner thereof had handed
over its possession to such a driver. On account of willful
breach of the terms & conditions of the policy by the insured,
SCCH-23 7 MVC. No.1679/2022
the insurance company is not liable to indemnify him.
Further denied all the allegation made in the petition. Hence
prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings the following
issues were framed :
ISSUES
1) Whether the petitioners proves that on 24.11.2021
at about 9.20 a.m., the deceased by name Monish.
H.C was riding the bicycle, on the extreme left side
of the Hosahalli – Holalagunda road and when he
reached near Kodihalli, Hosahalli – Holalagunda
Road, Amruthuru Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur
District, at that time, the driver of the Lorry
bearing reg.No.KA-04-C-2544 drove the same in a
rash and negligent manner with high speed and
dashed against the deceased bicycle. Due to which
the deceased fell down from the bicycle and
sustained grievous injury and succumbed to the
said injuries ?
2) Whether the petitioners proves that they are the
legal heirs and dependents of the deceased ?
3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation as prayed? If so, at what rate and
from whom ?
4) What order or award ?
7. Petitioner No.1 examined himself as PW.1. Ex’s.P1 to
12 were marked on behalf of the petitioners. In order to prove
the defence, the respondent No.2 who is the policy holder of
SCCH-23 8 MVC. No.1679/2022
the offending lorry and got examined himself as RW.1.
During the course of cross-examination of RW.1, Ex.R.1 got
marked. Further the respondent No.3 / insurance company
examined its Senior Leal Manager as RW.3 and through him
Ex.R.2 & 3 were got marked.
8. Heard erudite counsel for the petitioners and
respondents counsel on merits. Perused the entire materials
placed on record.
9. This tribunal answers to the above issues are as
follows :-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per final order for the
following :
REASONS
10. ISSUE NO.1 : The petitioners have knocked the
doors of justice with a relief to grant a compensation of an
amount to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs together. The evidence on
record reveals that based on the complaint the jurisdictional
SCCH-23 9 MVC. No.1679/2022
police conducted thorough investigation and filed charge
sheet against the driver of lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-04-C-
2544 for the offences punishable u/s 279, 304(A) of IPC.
11. In order to prove the facum of negligence the
petitioners have mainly relied on Ex.P.1 to 8 being the police
documents. Negligence has to be proved as a matter of fact.
Added more with regard to the cause of death, Postmortem
was conducted as per Ex.P.6 wherein it reflects that the
cause of death mentioned as : Death could have been caused
due to shock, due to skull fracture (head injury). The only
dispute in controversy is with regard to the negligence. It is
relevant to note that Ex.P.8 charge sheet is filed as against
the driver of offending lorry. It is vociferously urged by the
respondent No.3 counsel that, there is a negligence on the
part of the deceased himself was riding the bicycle without
observing vehicular movements.
12. Further more on perusal of Ex.P.3 and 4 being the
Spot Mahazar and Sketch prepared at the time of drawing
spot mahazar. Further the spot mahzar and sketch it reflects
SCCH-23 10 MVC. No.1679/2022
that the accident happened Near Kodihalli, Hosahalli –
Holalagunda road, Amruthuru Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur
District. On close perusal of the same it reflects that the
bicycle in which the deceased was riding was hit by the lorry
on opposite direction. Further the contents of the Ex.P.3 & 4
shows that the said road is a narrow way road and infront of
the accident spot there is a Holalagunda Kodihalli Bridge and
it is further shows that the accident occured on the lane of
deceased who was proceeding on its lane. The driver of the
offending lorry came from opposite direction and dashed the
deceased’s bicycle from right side. This categorically reflects
that the offending lorry had hit the bicycle of the deceased’s
from opposite side shows that there is a negligence on the
part of the driver of the lorry. If the driver of the offending
lorry was coming in a normal speed then he would certainly
avoided the accident. The spot mahazar and sketch and in
the light of charge sheet it is crystal clear that the offending
lorry had hit the bicycle of the deceased from its opposite
side. Above all even the charge sheet was also filed as against
SCCH-23 11 MVC. No.1679/2022
the driver of the car for the offences punishable u/s 279 and
304A of IPC.
13. It is necessary to reassert that in a claim for
compensation filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, the claimant is expected to prove the incident on basis
of principle of preponderance of probabilities and the view
taken by this Court is fortified by the decision rendered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kusum and others V/s Satbir
and others which is reported in 2011 SAR (CIVIL) 319.
Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bimla Devi
and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and
others reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530 has observed that, it
is necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident
caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be
possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants are merely
required to establish their case on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond
reasonable doubt could not have been applied. Further the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in National Insurance Co.
SCCH-23 12 MVC. No.1679/2022
Ltd. Vs. Krishnappa and another reported in 2001 ACJ
1105, where the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
considering the fact that the rider of the offending vehicle
was not examined to prove any contributory negligence
on the part of scooterist held that the accident had
occurred due to rash or negligent driving by the rider of
the offending van. Even in the instant case the driver of the
lorry is not examined to show that there was no negligence
on his part and even otherwise the IO, as already observed,
has clearly opined that the accident occurred only due to the
fault of the driver of the lorry and he was charge sheeted.
Another important aspects to be noted here is, respondent
No.3 did not made any endevour to examine the driver of the
offending lorry. Mere taking of defence is not sufficient to
dislodge the testimony of other side, which has no sanctity in
the eyes of Law. Under such circumstances the evidence of
PW.1 which is supported by police documents has to be
accepted. Consequently I hold that the accident is proved to
have been caused due to the actionable negligence of the
SCCH-23 13 MVC. No.1679/2022
driver of lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-04-C-2544. With this
observation issue No.1 is answered as ‘In the Affirmative.
14. ISSUE NO.2 : The petitioners claim that, Petitioner.
No.1 & 2 are the parents and petitioner No.3 is the elder
brother of the deceased. To prove the same, petitioner No.1
filed affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination and deposed
about the above relationship. The Aadhaar cards marked at
Ex’s.P9 to 12 and contents of the police papers do fortify the
said fact. It is pertinent to note that this relationship of the
petitioners with the deceased has not been disputed by the
respondent. Since the evidence led by the petitioners is
satisfactory and also taking into consideration the fact that
there are no rival claimants, this Tribunal hold that the
petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased.
Therefore, petitioners are the legal heir and dependents of
deceased. Hence, this Tribunal answers to issue No.1 In the
Affirmative.
15. ISSUE NO.3: In the petition, the petitioners have
stated that the deceased was aged 13 years and he was an
SCCH-23 14 MVC. No.1679/2022
bright student. Further deposed that, his son was studying
in 7th standard. The petitioners have not produced the marks
card to show his academic career. Since the deceased was
non earning person at the time of accident.
16. In the present case the 13 years boy died in the
accident who is non earning member. Therefore, this
Tribunal would like to refer the decision of Kishan Gopal v.
Lala, (2014) 1 SCC 244 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 184 : (2014) 1
SCC , in this case the Hon’ble Supreme court has held that,
We have also considered the fact that
the rupee value has come down
drastically from the year 1994, when
the notional income of the non- earning
member prior to the date of accident
was fixed at Rs.15,000/-. Further, the
deceased boy, had he been alive would
have certainly contributed substantially
to the family of the appellants by
working hard. In view of the aforesaid
reasons, it would be just and reasonable
for us to take his notional income at
Rs.30,000/-.
SCCH-23 15 MVC. No.1679/2022
17. The Hon’ble Apex court has laid down the principle
in the death of Minor boy in the accident and Hon’ble Apex
Court considered the income of the non-earning member i.e.,
Minor about of Rs.30,000/-p.a.
18. Further in view of decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Meena Devi V/s Nanu Chand Mahto Alias
Nemchand mahto and others in (2023) 1 Supreme Court
Cases 204 : (2023) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 362 :
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1393. wherein it was held that In
view of the foregoing decisions, it is apparent that in the
cases of child death, the notional income of Rs.15,000/-
as specified in the IInd Schedule of the MV Act has been
enhanced on account of devaluation of money and value
of rupee coming down from the date on which the IInd
Schedule of the MV Act was introduced and the said
notional income was treated as Rs.30,000/- in Kishan
Gopal and Rs.25,000/- in Kurvan Ansari in age group of
10 and 7 years respectively.
SCCH-23 16 MVC. No.1679/2022
19. It is urged that, the deceased was aged 13 years at
the time of the accident. The petitioners have produced the
Aadhaar card of deceased as per Ex.P.12. It discloses the date
of birth of the deceased as 27.06.2009. Thereby as on the
date of accident deceased was aged about (12 years 4 months
28 days) 12 years and proper multiplier applicable to the
case on hand as per the principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Kishan Gopal v. Lala, (2014) 1 SCC 244 :
(2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 184 : (2014) 1 SCC is ’15’.
20. The Annual income of the deceased is taken as
Rs.30,000/-p.a. and the multiplier ’15’ is applied, then the
loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,50,000/- (Rs.30,000 X 15).
Considering the above facts, this Tribunal deem it just and
reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- under
the head of loss of dependency.
21. Further, as law laid down by the Hon’ble Appex
court in National Insurance company Vs Pranay Sethi and
others, the compensation towards loss to the estate, funeral
expenses and consortium to be awarded. Hence, this
SCCH-23 17 MVC. No.1679/2022
Tribunal award Rs.18,150/- towards loss t o estate
and Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses as enhanced
at the rate of 10% on every 3 years.
22. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM: In this case, petitioners
No.1 and 2 are the father and mother of the deceased and as
per the decision reported in (2018) 12 SCC 130 between
Magma General Insurance Company Limited V/s Nanu Ram
alias Chuhru Ram and others, the petitioners are entitled for
filial consortium, as the filial consortium is the right of the
parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a
child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great
shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased.
The greatest agony for a parent is to lose of their child during
their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection,
companionship and their oral in the family unit. In case where
a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or
daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of
consortium under the head of Filial Consortium. Filial
consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the
SCCH-23 18 MVC. No.1679/2022
case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to
the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the
parents and family of the deceased. Children are valued for
their love and affection, and their role in the family unit. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in (2020)9 SCC
644 in the case of the New India Assurance Company Ltd
V/s Smt.Somwati & others, has held that the claims Tribunal
shall award Parental and Filial Consortium in a sum of
Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled for
Rs.40,000/- each under the head of Filial consortium.
23. The calculation table stands as follows:
Compensation heads Compensation amount
1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.4,50,000/-
2. Towards loss to estate Rs. 18,150/-
3. Towards funeral expanses Rs. 18,150/-
4. Towards filial consortium to Rs. 80,000/-
petitioner No.1 and 2
Total Rs.5,66,300/-
24. REGARDING INTEREST & LIABILITY: Having
regard to the nature of the claim and current bank rate of
SCCH-23 19 MVC. No.1679/2022interest, this Tribunal is of the view that if interest at the rate
of 6% per annum is awarded it would meet the ends of
justice.
25. The whole anchorage of the defence of the
respondent No.2 found place para No.2 of the written
statement wherein the respondent No.3 had taken up a
specific plea that it has not issued the policy
No.2317203664074945856 valid from 07.01.2021 to
06.01.2022 in respect of Lorry / goods vehicle bearing
Reg.No.KA-04-C-2544.
26. In order to prove his defence the respondent No.2
being the policy holder has examined himself as RW.1. In his
chief affidavit he stated that he sold the Goods vehicle / lorry
bearing Reg.No.KA-04-C-2544 to respondent No.1 Nazeer
Ahmed, who is the owner of the lorry and same was insured
with the respondent No.3. He stated that in the month of
September-2021 he sold the lorry in favour respondent
No.1 / Nazeer Ahmed, the said respondent has got
transferred the said goods vehicle / lorry in the month of
SCCH-23 20 MVC. No.1679/2022October-2021 to his name and now the RC owner of the said
vehicle is standing in the name of respondent No.1, but he
failed to transfer the insurance policy of the said vehicle to
his name. During the course of his cross examination he
stated that the registration number of vehicle No.KA-04-C-
2544 is admittedly lorry. He admitted that he did not have
any documents to sold the vehicle. He admitted that at the
time of sold, the vehicle is having valid insurance coverage.
He stated that he sold the vehicle before 3-4 years back. He
stated that as on January-2021 he was the owner of the said
vehicle. He stated that :
“KA-04-C-2544 ಈ ನಂಬರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಸದರಿ ವಾಹನ TVS Excel 50
ಅಂತ ಹೇಳಿ two wheeler liability only ಅಂತ ಪಾಲಿಸಿಯನ್ನು
ದಿನಾಂಕ 07.01.2021 ರಿಂದ 06.01.2022 ಮಧ್ಯ ರಾತ್ರಿಯವರಗೆೆ
ಪಾಲಿಸಿ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಅದನ್ನು ನಾನು ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿಲ್ಲ. ದಿನಾಂಕ
07.01.2021 ರಂದು ಸದರಿ KA-04-C-2544 ಲಾರಿಗೆ ನಾನೇ
ಮಾಲೀಕನಾಗಿದ್ದೆ. ಲಾರಿಯನ್ನು ದ್ವಿಚಕ್ರವಾಹನ ಅಂತ ಹೇಳಿ ವಿಮೆ ಗೆ ಹಣ ನಾನೇ
ಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ.
HDFC Ergo GIC Company ಯವರು ಲಾರಿಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ
ರೀತಿ ಪಾಲಿಸಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಿಮೀಯಂ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ಲಾರಿಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಪಾಲಿಸಿ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳದೆ ಮೋಸದಿಂದ ಸದರಿ ಲಾರಿ ನಂಬರ್
ಅಲ್ಲಿ two wheeler ಅಂತ ಹಣ ಪಾವತಿಸಿ ಪಾಲಿಸಿ ಪಡೆದುದ್ದರಿಂದ ನಾನೇ
ಪರಿಹಾರ ನೀಡಲು ಹೊಣೆಗಾರನಾಗುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಈಗ ನಾನು
ನೋಡುತ್ತಿರುವ ದಾಖಲೆ ನಾನು ದಿನಾಂಕ 07.01.2022 ರಂದು
ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡ ದಾಖಲೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಮುಂದುವರಿದು ಬ್ರೋಕರ್
SCCH-23 21 MVC. No.1679/2022ಕಡೆಯಿಂದ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದು ಅಂತ ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಒಪ್ಪಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದರಿಂದ
ಅದನ್ನು ನಿ.ಆರ್.1 ಅಂತ ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು.”
On perusal of evidence of RW.1 it is crystal clear that the
respondent No.3 has issued a policy in
No.2317203664074945856 in respect of TVS XL-50 not to
lorry. Further RW.1 admitted that the said policy is received
from broker.
27. In order to prove their defence the respondent No.3
examined its official as RW.2. In his chief affidavit evidence
he stated that this respondent is not the insurer of the
offending lorry as on the date of accident and on verification
of documents, the policy No.2317203664074945856 was
issued by this respondent in respect of Two wheeler only
policy for TVS XL in favour of Nazeer Ahmed. The respondent
No.1 has obtained the policy by suppressing the make and
model and paid the premium for two wheeler. The respondent
No.1 has suppressed the material fact in order to gain to get
unlawful gain have obtained the policy. Hence there exists no
contract between the owner of the lorry and this respondent
as on the date of accident. In this regard the RW.2 has
SCCH-23 22 MVC. No.1679/2022
produced 2 documents which are marked as Ex.R.2 and 3
being the True copy of insurance policy and Letter to SHO
Amruthapura Police.
28. On perusal of Ex.R.1 it is crystal clearly mentioned
that the insurance policy bearing No.2317203664074945856
is issued in respect of TVS XL-50 and vide which they have
collected Rs.510/- towards premium. Further in the present
case the accident is occurred due to the negligence of driver
of Lorry and the police have filed charge sheet against him.
Hence it is crystal clear that as on the date of accident the
respondent No.1 has not taken any insurance policy in
respect of the offending lorry. Only vehicle bearing
Reg.No.KA-04-C-2544 was displayed in the policy, this Court
cannot come to conclusion that the lorry is having valid
policy as on the date of accident.
29. From the evidence affidavit of RW.1 it is amply clear
that the policy bearing No.2317203664074945856 is not
covers to the Lorry and it covers only to TVS XL-50. Hence
the respondent No.3 has not issued any policy of insurance
SCCH-23 23 MVC. No.1679/2022
in respect of Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-04-C-2544 covering
the period of validity as mentioned by the petitioners in the
claim petition. Thus the respondent No.1 and 2 being the
owner and policy holder of offending vehicle are liable to pay
the aforesaid award amount to the petitioners together with
interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till
realization of the entire amount. Hence issue No.3 is
answered as ‘Partly in the Affirmative’.
30. ISSUE NO.4 : In view of the discussion made supra,
this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following :
ORDER
The petition filed under Section 166 of M.V.
Act 1988, is hereby partly allowed with costs in
the following terms :
The petitioners are entitled for compensation
of Rs.5,66,300/- with interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization
of the entire award amount.
The respondent No.1 and 2 being the
owner and policy holder of Lorry bearing
Reg.No.KA-04-C-2544 are jointly and severally
liable to pay and directed to deposit the
SCCH-23 24 MVC. No.1679/2022compensation amount within a period of Two
month from the date of award.
On deposit of the award amount together
with interest, the claimants are entitled for the
compensation amount by way of apportionment as
follows :
Petitioner No.1 - 60%
Petitioner No.2 - 30%
Petitioner No.3 - 10%
Out of the share amount of Petitioner No.1
& 2 a sum equal to 25% shall be deposited in
their names in any Nationalized or Scheduled
Bank of their choice for a period of 3 years and the
remaining 75% shall be released to them through
E-payment on proper identification and
verification. However the said petitioner No.1 & 2
are at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest
accrued on their deposit amount from time to
time.
The share amount apportioned in the name
of minor petitioner No.3 is ordered to be
deposited in his name vide Fixed Deposit till he
attains the age of majority, at any
Nationalized/Scheduled Bank as per the choice of
SCCH-23 25 MVC. No.1679/2022the next friend/Natural guardian of the said minor
petitioner.
The petition is dismissed against
respondent No.3/HDFC Ergo Gen. Insurance
Company Limited.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer &
printout taken by him, then corrected and pronounced by me
in the open court on this the 21st day of May – 2025).
(Shreyansh Doddamani)
XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge
& ACJM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES
List of witnesses examined for the petitioner/s:
PW.1 : Sri. Chandrappa
List of documents got marked for the petitioner/s:
Ex.P.1 FIR
Ex.P.2 Complaint
Ex.P.3 Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.4 Sketch
Ex.P.5 IMV Report
Ex.P.6 PM Report
Ex.P.7 Inquest Report
Ex.P.8 Charge Sheet
Ex.P.9 to Aadhar cards
Ex.P.12
SCCH-23 26 MVC. No.1679/2022
List of witnesses examined for the respondent/s:
RW.1 : Sri. Mohammed Nadeem Pasha RW.2 : Sri. Suresh. S
List of documents got marked for the respondent/s :
Ex.R.1 Copy of insurance policy marked at the time of
cross examination of RW.1
Ex.R.2 True copy of insurance policy
Ex.R.3 Letter to SHO Amruthpura PS along with postal
receipt.
(Shreyansh Doddamani)
XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge
& ACMM, Bengaluru.
[ad_2]
Source link