Bangalore District Court
Pushpa P vs Sathish Kumar C on 1 July, 2025
KABC020312982024
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 1st DAY OF JULY 2025
MVC No.4032/2024
PETITIONER: 1. Smt. P.Pushpa
W/o Late Ramesh S.,
Aged about 34 years,
2. R.Jagan
S/o Late Ramesh,
Aged about 13 years,
3. R. Bharath
S/o Late Ramesh,
Aged about 11 years,
All are R/at:
No.15-44,
Itukarallapalli
Venkagirikota,
Chittoor,
Andhra Pradesh - 517 424.
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.4032/2024
The 2nd & 3rd Petitioners are
minor
Hence their Mother the first
Petitioner represents on
behalf of them in all the
proceedings as natural
guardian.
(By Sri. R.Chandrashekar,
Advocate/s.)
V/S
RESPONDENTS: 1. C. Sathish Kumar Co.
S/o Chandrappa,
R/at #47, Kothachenu
Kuppam Mallanuru Post
Kuppam Mandal Chittoor,
Andhrapradesh - 517 425.
RC owner of Bajaj Pulsar Two
Wheeler bearing No.AP-40-AN-
4930
(Ex-parte)
2. The Regional manager
The oriental Gen. Ins. Co.
Ltd.,
#44/45, 4th Floor Leo
Shopping Complex,
Residency Road,
Bangalore - 560 025.
Policy No.4327
02/31/2024/4041
Date from 26.10.2023 to
25.10.2028.
(By Sri. Vijayendra D. Joshi,
Advocate.)
SCCH-25 3 MVC No.4032/2024
******
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.50,00,000/- for
the death of S. Ramesh was died in a road traffic accident
that occurred on 23.02.2024 at about 06.30pm.
2. The case of the claimants in nutshell is that:
On 23.02.2024 at about 06.30pm, the deceased was
going to agricultural land from Itukarakllapalli Village on
Honda Shine bearing Reg.No.AP-39-CZ-3551 with slowly by
observing all traffic rules. When he reached near Shell petrol
bunk on Kuppam-V-Kote Main Road, Panthanahalli, KGF, a
Two Wheeler Bajaj Pulsar bearing Reg.NO.AP-40-AN-4930
which was coming behind the Honda shine vehicle at a high
speed, in a rash and negligent manner, without observing any
traffic norms and regulations, endangering human life and
dashed against the deceased’s vehicle. Due to impact, he fell
down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately deceased
was shifted to PES Medical College, Kuppam wherein
provided first aid and thereafter shifted to Thirupathi
Hospital, but before reaching the hospital he was succumbed
to the injuries on 24.02.2024 at about 4.45am. Post Mortem
SCCH-25 4 MVC No.4032/2024was conducted at Government Hospital, KGF and handed
over the body to the petitioners. The petitioners performed
funeral and obsequious ceremonies. So far they have spent
Rs.1,00,000/- towards funeral and obsequies ceremonies.
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.25.000/- 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.50,00,000/- 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 RC owner and the respondent
No.2 being the Insurer of the offending Bajaj Pulsar Bike
bearing Reg.No.AP-40-AN-4930 are jointly and severally liable
to pay compensation to the petitioners.
4. The accident in question was taken place due to
rash and negligent riding by the rider of the Bajaj Pulsar Bike
bearing Reg.No.AP-40-AN-4930. The Bethamangala Police
have registered a case against the rider of the offending Bajaj
Pulsar Bike bearing Reg.No.AP-40-AN-4930 in
Cr.No.030/2024 p/u/Secs.279, 304(A) of IPC. For the
SCCH-25 5 MVC No.4032/2024
aforesaid reasons, the claimants have prayed for awarding
total compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- under various heads.
5. In pursuance of the notice, the respondent No.2
has appeared and filed written statement. In spite of due
service of notice the respondent No.1 did not appear hence,
placed ex-parte.
5A. The respondent No.2 has filed the written
statement denying the entire petition averments. Further
denied that the rider of the Bajaj Pulsar Bike bearing
Reg.No.AP-40-AN-4930 did not possess the effective and valid
DL. Kowing fully well that the rider has not having DL to ride
the vehicle. Further stated that the insured/owner did not
have proper and valid FC to use vehicle on the road. Further
stated that the police record shows that the accident is
occurred due to the deceased who had consumed alcohol o
an extent-quantum of Ethyl Alcohol of 95.91 mg/100ml of
blood and quantum of Ethyl Alcohol of 89.59 mg/100ml of
blood. Therefore, it is made clear that the deceased who had
consumed alcohol and driving the vehicle has made gross
negligence and resulted an accident. The charge sheet is also
filed under Sec.185 f IMV act after obtaining the FSL report.
Further contended that the vehicle motorcycle bearing
Reg.No.AP-39-CZ-3551 did not possess insurance policy at
the time of accident. There is a non-joinder of necessary
parties to the plaint. There is non compliance of Sec.134(c)
SCCH-25 6 MVC No.4032/2024
and 158(6) of MV Act. Further contended that the
compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive,
exorbitant. Hence, the respondent No. prayed to dismiss the
petition with costs.
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 S. Ramesh.?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that, the
deceased S.Ramesh had died due to the
injuries sustained in the road traffic
accident that occurred on 23.02.2024 at
about 6.30pm infront of Shell Petrol Bunk,
Kuppam V.Kote Main Road, KGF, due to
rash and negligent riding of rider of Bajaj
Pulsar bike bearing Reg.No.AP-40-AN-4930
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. The
SCCH-25 7 MVC No.4032/2024
respondent No.2 got examined its official as RW.1 and got
marked Exs.R.1 to R.5.
8. I have heard the arguments canvassed by the
counsel for the parties.
The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
following decision:
First Appeal No.1780/2024 : ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins.
Co. Ltd., Vs. Arti Devi and 8 Ors.
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 affirmative.
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.2 has got examined its official as RW.1 and got marked
SCCH-25 8 MVC No.4032/2024
Exs.R.1 to R.5. 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 nothing worthwhile is
elicited. 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 and PAN Car and Ration Card of petitioners and the
deceased as per Exs.P.9 to 11. Ex.P.5 Inquest mahazar also
shows the names and relationship of the petitioners with the
deceased.
13. The petitioner has totally relied on the police
documents to establish the negligence on the part of the
deceased and offending vehicle’s rider. It is no doubt the
police have submitted the charge sheet against the rider of
the offending motorcycle after thorough investigation. The
sketch appended to spot mahazar indicates that the rider of
the offending vehicle was almost on left side of the road. The
road towards V.Kote – Kuppam Main Road, the accident was
occured. The width of the road is 40 feet and the accident
was occurred on left side of V.Kote towards Kuppam Main
Road and the offending vehicle was coming on the same
SCCH-25 9 MVC No.4032/2024
direction. The oral evidence of the petitioner has coupled with
documentary evidence. The insurance company has not
denied the accident but their contention is that the deceased
has also contributed to accident. But the material on record
are clearly depicts that the petitioner was on the left side of
his path. It is undisputed fact that the deceased was
consumed alocohol as per the reports. But, there are no
materials are available to hold that the deceased was rode the
bike in zig manner or endangers to human life. Further, the
offending vehicle was dashed to rear side of the deceased
bike. The width of road was 40 feet. So, the arguments does
not holds any kind of water. The material on records are
clearly indicates that the accident has occurred sole
negligence on the offending vehicle’s rider. The accident was
occurred at about 6.15PM, normally traffic was not so high.
when the rider of the offending bike having sufficient space
for smooth proceeding, it being the case, if the rider of the
offending bike had taken minimal care, the accident would
have been postponed or not occurred.
14. The contention of the insurance company that the
rider of the offending Vehicle was not having valid driving
license at the time of accident. The RW.1 has reiterated the
same along with other facts in his chief examination affidavit.
The RW.1 has been subjected to cross examination. Nothing
has been elicited throughout the cross examination.
SCCH-25 10 MVC No.4032/2024
15. A perusal of the charge sheet, the police have
submitted the charge sheet against the accused or rider of
the offending vehicle which is belongs to respondent No.1
and further the police have charge sheet against the
respondent No.1 for the offense punishable under section 5
read with 180 of Motor Vehicle Act.. The police have referred
section 279, 304(A) of IPC and section 187, 3(181) of MV Act
against the accused i.e., rider of the offending bike. So, as per
the police documents, the rider of the offending vehicle did
not have a valid driving license at the time of alleged
accident. Hence, it can be hold that the rider of the offending
vehicle does not possessed the valid driving license at the
time of the alleged accident. It is true that the insurer has
not summoned the concerned RTO official to prove this
aspect. When the petitioner has mainly relied on the police
document to establish the negligence on the part of the rider
of the offending vehicle, they can not denied other part of the
document. In other words the documents should be read its
entirety. So, I decline to accept the arguments canvassed by
the petitioner counsel in respect to non examining of the
official of Regional Transport office.
16. It is undisputed fact that the there was a delay in
lodging the case. The First information report indicates that,
the informant had not lodged the complaint in time as the
SCCH-25 11 MVC No.4032/2024
petitioner No.1 herein was busy in hospital. 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
deciding motor accident claim cases. Delay
SCCH-25 12 MVC No.4032/2024
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.”
17. 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 as the petitioner No.1 herein was busy in hospital.
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. 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
SCCH-25 13 MVC No.4032/2024
negligence act is sufficient if it is in the nature of
preponderance of probability.
18. As I referred above, though the deceased was
proceeding in his motorcycle by consuming alcohol but the
materials are not demonstrating that the deceased was so
negligent in riding the bike or in other words the entire
materials on records does not discloses that such violation
was the cause for the accident to attribute contributory
negligence on the part of deceased.
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in a decision
2018 (5) SCC 656 held
1
“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
1
Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
SCCH-25 14 MVC No.4032/2024
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 liability merely
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
SCCH-25 15 MVC No.4032/2024often 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
SCCH-25 16 MVC No.4032/2024quick disposals so that the trauma and
tragedy already sustained may not be
magnified by the injustice of delayed
justice. 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”
SCCH-25 17 MVC No.4032/2024
20. The Court cannot adopt strict liability as
conducted in a criminal case to prove rash and negligence on
the part of the rider of the respondent 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 rider of the insured. The materials
on records are clearly indicates that the accident was
occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the
respondent No.1’s vehicle and the respondent No.1 has
allowed the rider to rode the vehicle by knowing fully he was
not possessed the valid Driving License. So, I hold issue
Nos.1 & 2 in the affirmative
21. Issue No.3:
The Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are being wife and minor
children of the deceased. It is contention of the petitioners
that the deceased was doing Agriculture Work and earning of
Rs.25,000/- 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 and PAN Card of the deceased at
Exs.P.9 & 10 discloses that the deceased age was 38 years.
As I mentioned above, the petitioners have not placed any
SCCH-25 18 MVC No.4032/2024material 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.16,500/- 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.16,500/- and the
deceased comes below the age of 40 years slab then 40% of
future prospects of his income would come to Rs.6,600/-
then after adding the future prospects to his total income it
comes to Rs.23,100/-. As per Sarala Varma’s case the
multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 15. The
petitioners are the wife and minor children all are depending
on the income of the deceased. Therefore, Petitioner Nos.1 to
3 are the dependents of the deceased. If there are 2 to 3
dependents, then 1/3rd 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.15,400/- (Rs.23,100/- – Rs.7,700/- = Rs.15,400/-). The
loss of dependency is calculated as below. Rs.15,400/-
(monthly income) x 12 x 15 (multiplier) =Rs.27,72,000/-.
This is just and proper compensation under the head of loss
SCCH-25 19 MVC No.4032/2024
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
22. 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.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
23. 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
2
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram
SCCH-25 20 MVC No.4032/2024
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
the 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
SCCH-25 21 MVC No.4032/2024
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”.
24. 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. Hence a sum of Rs.1,44,000/- (Rs.48,000/-
each) is awarded under this head.
25. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for
compensation under the following heads.
Sl. No. Name of the Head Awarded
Compensation
01. Loss of dependency Rs.27,72,000=00
02. Towards loss of estate Rs.18,000=00
03. Towards Funeral expenses Rs.18,000=00
04. Loss of Consortium Rs.1,44,000=00
TOTAL Rs.29,52,000=00
26. The next question is the liability to pay the said
compensation. As I referred above the accident was occurred
due rash and negligent riding of the offending motorcycle. It
is not the case of the either respondents that, the insurance
was not in force at the time of accident. As I referred above,
the rider of the offending vehicle was ridden the offending
SCCH-25 22 MVC No.4032/2024
bike without possessing the valid driving license. The alleged
accident was occurred on 23.02.2024. It means the accident
was occurred to post amendment of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Section 150(2) of Motor Vehicle Act (amendment) reads thus:
“(2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-
section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless,
before the commencement of the proceedings in which
the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice
through the court or, as the case may be, the Claims
Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect
of such judgment or award so long as its execution is
stayed pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice
of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall
be entitled to be made a party thereto.” Hence, fastening
of liability on respondent No.2 viz insurance company does
not arise at all.
27. APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION:
The claimants No.1 to 3 are being the wife, children of the
deceased. Hence, they are entitled for 60:20:20 ratio
respectively in the total compensation with accrued interest.
On deposit of compensation, the claimants No.1 is entitled to
withdraw 50% of her 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
SCCH-25 23 MVC No.4032/2024attains the age of majority. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3
partly in Affirmative.
28. 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 against the
respondent No.1.
The respondent No.1 is liable to pay
total compensation to the tune of
Rs.29,52,000=00 (Rupees Twenty Nine
Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand 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
directed 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 3 are entitled
for 60:20:20 ratio respectively in the total
SCCH-25 24 MVC No.4032/2024compensation with accrued interest.
On deposit of compensation,
the claimants No.1 is entitled to withdraw
50% of her 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 1st day of July, 2025).
(Raghavendra. R.)
XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT,
Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined for the Petitioner/s:
PW.1 : Smt. P. Pushpa
List of documents exhibited for the Petitioner/s:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR and complaint Ex.P2 True copy of Spot mahazar SCCH-25 25 MVC No.4032/2024 Ex.P3 True copy of Spot sketch Ex.P4 True copy of IMV report Ex.P5 True copy of Inquest report Ex.P6 True copy of PM report with FSL report Ex.P7 True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P8 True copy of notice and reply u/Sec.133 of MV Act. Ex.P9 Notarized copy of Adhaar cards of petitioners and deceased 4 in Nos. Ex.P10 Notarized copy of PAN Cards of petitioner No.1 and deceased Ex.P11 Notarized copy of Ration Card of family of petitioners Ex.P12 Study Certificate of petitioners No.2 & 3
List of witnesses examined for the respondent/s:
RW.1 Shaifali Srivastava
List of documents exhibited for the Respondent/s:
Ex.R.1 Authorization letter
Ex.R.2 Copy of Policy
Ex.R.3 Notice and reply
Ex.R.4 Office copy of Notice
Ex.R.5 Postal Acknowledgment
(Raghavendra. R.)
XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT,
Bangalore.
Digitally signed by
RAMACHANDRAPPA
RAMACHANDRAPPA RAGHAVENDRA
RAGHAVENDRA
Date: 2025.07.03
11:46:37 +0530