Bangalore District Court
Sujatha Alias Siddaraju vs Somashekar on 3 June, 2025
KABC020346002023
IN THE COURT OF XIX ADDL.JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
BENGALURU (SCCH-17)
PRESENT: SRI. KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM B.A.L., LL.M.,
XIX ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & ACJM,
BENGALURU.
Dated: This the 03rd day of June 2025
M.V.C.No. 7288/2023
Petitioners 1. Sri Sujatha @ Siddaraju
S/o Siddaiah,
Aged about 53 years.
2. Smt Jayakanthi
W/o Sujatha,
Aged about 48 years.
Both are R/at:
Sunnagatta village,
Kasaba hobali,
Channapatana taluk,
Ramanagara dist.
(By Sri. D Harsha, Advt., )
V/s
Respondents 1. Sri Somashekar
S/o Krishnegowda,
SCCH-17 2 MVC 7288/2023
Menasiganahalli village,
Alalasandra post,
Channapatana taluk,
Ramanagara Dist.
(By Sri. Naveen Kumar R D, Advt., )
2. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
No.2-B, Unity Building Annexe,
P Kalinga Rao Road,
Bangalore 560027.
(By Sri. R Jaiprakash, Advt., )
JUDGMENT
This judgment is emerged consequent upon the
petition filed by the petitioners U/S 166 of M.V. Act,
claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- on account of
the death of Jagadeesh, in a road traffic accident.
2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows:
On 05-05-2023 at about 8.30 p.m., the deceased
was proceeding by riding Scooter bearing No.
KA.42.Y.4470 from Honganur to Channapatana road, at
that time the driver of the Tractor bearing No.
KA.42.T.8298 came from Channapatana side near Gopi
SCCH-17 3 MVC 7288/2023clinic at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the Scooter and caused the accident.
Due to the impact, deceased sustained grievous injuries
all over the body.
Immediately the injured was shifted to
Channapatna government hospital, wherein first aid
treatment was given and shifted to MIMS hospital,
Mandya, wherein the doctor after examination declared
that the injured was already dead due to the accidental
injuries. Thereafter postmortem was conducted and
handed over the body to the petitioners and they have
performed funeral and obsequies ceremonies.
Prior to the accident, deceased was hale and
healthy, aged about 21 years and doing plumbing work
and earning Rs.25,000/ per month and contributing his
entire income for the maintenance of his family. Due to
the untimely death of deceased the petitioners have
suffered mentally and financially.
SCCH-17 4 MVC 7288/2023
The respondent No.1 & 2 are the owner and insurer
of the offending tractor are jointly severally liable to pay
the compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, prays to
award compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- with interest to
the petitioners.
3. After service of notices, both the respondents
have appeared before the court through their respective
counsels and filed separate written statement.
The Respondent No.1- owner has appeared through
his counsel and filed written statement by denying the
cause and manner of accident and contended that, the
deceased was riding the scooter in a zig zag manner and
suddenly stopped the vehicle without any signals and
caused the accident. Further contended that, the petition
is bad for non joinder and proper parties as the owner and
insurer of the bike were not made as party to the
proceedings and the tractor was falsely implicated in the
alleged accident even though there is no rash and
negligent act on the part of the driver of the tractor.
SCCH-17 5 MVC 7288/2023
Further this respondent has denied the age, occupation
and income of the deceased. The compensation claimed by
the petitioners is exaggerated and primarily intended to
make illegal gain. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim
petition against him.
Respondent No.2 – insurance company appeared
through its counsel and filed written statement by denying
the age, occupation and income of the deceased. Further it
has denied the cause and manner of accident and the
involvement of the offending tractor in the said accident.
Further contended that, the deceased and the offending
tractor driver were not having valid and effective DL at the
time of accident and the offending vehicle was also not
having permit at the time of accident. Hence the
respondent No.2 – insurance company prays to dismiss
the petition against it.
4. On the basis of the rival contentions, the
following issues were framed by this court:
SCCH-17 6 MVC 7288/2023
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that
deceased Jagadeesh died in the
motor vehicle accident that occurred
on 05-05-2023 at about 8.30 p.m. on
Honganur to Sathnur road,
Honganur Gopi Clinic, Honganur
due to the rash and negligence
driving of the Tractor bearing Reg.
No. KA.42.T.8298 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that
they are the legal heirs and
dependents of deceased?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled
for compensation? If so, what
amount and from whom?
4. What order or award?
5. In order to prove the claim petition, the 1st petitioner
is examined as PW.1 and got marked the documents at
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8.
On the other hand 2nd respondent has examined its
official as RW.1 and Ex.R1 to R3 were got marked.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the material
evidence that is available on record.
SCCH-17 7 MVC 7288/2023
7. My findings on the above issues are as under.
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative,
Issue No.2 : In the affirmative,
Issue No.3 : In the affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per final orders
for the following.-
REASONS
ISSUE NO.1:
8. The petitioners to prove their claim have
produced true copies of FIR, complaint, spot mahazar,
inquest report, PM report and charge sheet, which are
marked under Ex.P.1 to 6.
9. As per the documents, Ex.P1 FIR is came to be
registered on the basis of the complaint given by 1 st
petitioner who is the father of the deceased as per Ex.P2.
In the Ex.P2, he has alleged the rash and negligent driving
by the driver of Tractor bearing No. KA.42.T.8298. After
the registration of FIR the IO conducted the spot mahazar
as per Ex.P3. As per the spot mahazar marked at Ex.P3
the vehicles involved in the accident were found in the
SCCH-17 8 MVC 7288/2023
accident spot itself. The Ex.P3 mahazar also depicts the
damages of the vehicle involved in the accident wherein a
right side bumper of the tractor has got damaged and as
the tractor ran over on the motor cycle, the said motor
cycle of the deceased has got fully damaged. This
evidentiates the veracity of the accident.
10. It is important to note that, as per the FIR it is
alleged that the driver of the tractor bearing No.
KA-42-T-8298 came from Channapatna side and while
trying to overtake the another vehicle came to the right
side portion of the road and dashed against the motor
cycle of the deceased who was coming from opposite side.
Thus, it is found that as per Ex.P3 mahazar, the right
side bumper of the the tractor bearing No. KA-42-T-8298
has got damages, which evidentiates that the driver of the
the tractor bearing No. KA-42-T-8298 came to his wrong
side I..e, right side portion of the road without observing
the vehicles coming from the opposite side and caused the
accident. If, the driver of the tractor bearing No.
SCCH-17 9 MVC 7288/2023
KA-42-T-8298 not came to the wrong side of the road, the
alleged accident was not going to be caused. Thereby the
Ex.P3 mahazar helped the petitioners to prove the alleged
negligence of the driver of the tractor bearing No.
KA-42-T-8298.
11. The respondent No.1 owner of the tractor bearing
No. KA-42-T-8298 even though filed written statement by
denying the negligence of the driver of Tractor bearing No.
KA.42.T.8298 but does not chosen to examine its driver in
support of their defence.
12. Ex.P5 is the postmortem report and Ex.P4 is
the inquest where both these documents discloses that
the deceased succumbed due to shock and hemorrhage as
a result of penetrating injury sustained to right lung and
heart caused to him in the said accident.
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
SCCH-17 10 MVC 7288/2023
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. 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
SCCH-17 11 MVC 7288/2023
of scooterist held that the accident had occurred due to
rash or negligent driving by the rider of the offending van.
14. In view of the ratio laid down in the authorities
referred to above and applying the settled principle of law
to the case at hand, which is further supported by the oral
and documentary evidence adduced by PW-1, this
Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the accident
leading to this case indeed occurred due to the actionable
negligence on the part of the driver of offending Tractor
bearing No. KA.42.T.8298 resulting in deceased sustaining
injuries.
15. Ex.P6 is the charge sheet filed against the driver
of the offending Tractor bearing No. KA.42.T.8298 for the
offence punishable under Sec. 279 & 304 (A) of IPC. The
investigating officer as per Ex.P6 charge sheet opined that
the driver of offending Tractor bearing No. KA.42.T.8298
driven the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
No other evidence is placed by the respondents to show
the contributory negligence by the deceased. During the
SCCH-17 12 MVC 7288/2023
course of cross-examination of PW.1, nothing has been
elicited so as to disprove the case of the petitioners.
16. The official of respondent No.2 insurance
company examined as RW.1. As admitted by the RW1. In
the cross-examination he is not an eye witness to the
accident, but deposing the evidence on the basis of
documents whereas the documents like crime records
point outs the negligence of the driver of the tractor
bearing No. KA-42-T-8298. As such, the evidence of the
RW.1 failed to establish the contributory negligence of the
deceased.
17. As per well settled position of law the standard
of proof in claim petition like present one, is only
preponderance of probabilities. Looking to the oral as well
as documentary evidence of the petitioners there are
sufficient materials to show that Jagadeesh died in the
accident dated 05-05-2023 which is caused by the driver
of the Tractor bearing No. KA.42.T.8298. Accordingly
issue No.1 answered in the affirmative.
SCCH-17 13 MVC 7288/2023
ISSUE NO.2
18. As held herein above, the petitioners have proved
that Jagadeesh died on 05-05-2023 due to the injuries
sustained in RTA, which is caused by respondent No.1.
19. As contended in the petition the petitioners are
the parents of the deceased Jagadeesh. The respondents
do not specifically deny the relationship of petitioners with
deceased. The petitioners to prove their relationship with
the deceased, have produced the notarized copies of
Aadhar cards of petitioners which are marked under
Ex.P7. During the course of recording the evidence the
notarized copies of Aadhar cards are compared with the
original documents and found correct. The respondents
do not dispute the Aadhar cards produced by the
petitioners. The respondent No.2 has not adduced any
evidence to disprove the relationship of the petitioners
with the deceased.
SCCH-17 14 MVC 7288/2023
20. In the absence of contradictory evidence the
evidence of the petitioner is to be accepted and it is
considered that, petitioners are the parents of deceased
being the dependents are entitled for compensation.
Accordingly Issue No.2 is answered in the Affirmative.
Issue No.3 :
21. The issued No.1 & 2 are answered in the
affirmative by holding that the deceased Jagadeesh died
in the RTA dated 05-05-2023 caused by the negligence
driving by the driver of Tractor bearing No. KA.42.T.8298
and the petitioners are entitled for the compensation.
22. Now the quantum of compensation is to be
decided. In the voter ID card of the deceased Jagadeesh
produced at Ex.P8, the date of birth of the deceased is
shown as 20-03-2000 and the accident was occurred on
05-05-2023. If it is considered, as on the date of the
accident the age of the deceased was 23 years.
SCCH-17 15 MVC 7288/2023
23. As stated in the petition deceased was working
as a plumber and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. To
prove the said fact, the petitioners have not produced any
documents. Such being the case, it is just and necessary
to consider the notional income of the petitioner at
Rs.16,000/- p.m. as the accident is of the year 2023.
24. As per Sarala varma’s case the proper
multiplier applicable to the age of deceased is 18. Since
the deceased was a bachelor 50% of the income is to be
deducted towards his personal expenses, then the total
loss of dependency would be Rs.17,28,000/-
(Rs.16,000/- X 12 x 18 = Rs.34,56,000/- minus half of
the income i.e., (34,56,000 – 17,28,000/-) =
Rs.17,28,000/-).
25. In Civil Special leave petition (Civil
No.25590/2014 dated 31.10.2016 (National
Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi & others),
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “While
determining the income, in case the deceased was self-
SCCH-17 16 MVC 7288/2023
employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the
established income should be the warrant where the
deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of
25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50
years and 10% where the deceased was between the age
of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary
method of computation. The established income means
the income minus the tax component.”
26. As per the above decisions 40% out of loss of
dependency has to be granted towards future prospects
which would Rs.6,91,200/-.
27. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM:
In Magma General Insurance company Limited Vs.
Nanuram (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Hon’ble Apex court has
observed “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,
SCCH-17 17 MVC 7288/2023solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his
family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual
relations with the deceased spouse”.
28. The Petitioners are the Parents of the deceased
and they have lost their loving daughter. Therefore they
are entitled to a sum of Rs.48,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 10%
hike every three years from 2017 as per Pranay Sethi
Case) under the head of loss of consortium.
29. Further I inclined to award Rs.50,000/-
towards loss of love and affection, Rs.16,500/- towards
loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses
(this amount is calculated as per Pranaya Sethi case with
enhanced rate at 10% after three years).
The petitioners are entitled for compensation under
the following heads:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 17,28,000/-
2. Loss of future prospects Rs. 6,91,200/-
3. Loss of consortium Rs. 48,000/-
4. Love and affection Rs. 50,000/-
SCCH-17 18 MVC 7288/2023
5. Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/-
6. Transport of dead body Rs. 16,500/-
Total Rs. 25,50,200/-
30. Liability:- In the petition it is alleged that the
respondent No.1& 2 are the owner and insurer of the
Tractor bearing No. KA.42.T.8298. The respondent No.2
in its written statement has not stated any thing about
the issuance of policy. But examined its official as RW.1
and produced the insurance policy marked at Ex.R2. On
perusal of the same the offending Tractor bearing No.
KA.42.T.8298 was insured with the 2nd respondent
insurance company and the policy was valid as on the
date of accident.
31. The Respondent No.2 insurance company
contended that the driver of the Tractor bearing No.
KA-42-T-8298 did not had a valid DL to drive the vehicle
as on the date of accident. In order to prove the same,
they got examined its official as RW.1 and produced
Ex.R1 to 3. As per Ex.R3 extract of driving licence one
SCCH-17 19 MVC 7288/2023Ramesha had the driving licence to drive MCWG, LMV
and tractor at the time of accident. Thus, it evidentiates
that the driver of the offending tractor was having valid
driving licence to drive the said tractor at the time of
accident.
32. Yet another arguments was canvassed by the
learned counsel for the respondent No.2 insurance
company that the driver of the tractor was driving Tractor
bearing No.KA-42-T-8298 along with a trailer, but the
driver did not possessed the driving licence to drive the
tractor with trailer. As such, the respondent No.2 cannot
indemnify the liability of respondent No.1.
33. By keeping the said arguments canvassed by the
learned counsel for the respondent No.2 insurance
company it is established that as per Ex.R3 the driver of
offending vehicle had the driving licence to drive the
tractor at the time of accident. The complaint and also
mahazar produced by the petitioner shows that at the
time of accident, the said tractor was attached with
SCCH-17 20 MVC 7288/2023trailer. The trailer was attached to the tract at the time
of accident. But it is very important to note that the
accident was caused by the tractor and not by the trailer.
In the judgment reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668 –
Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., Wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held has follows:
“60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus,
the gross vehicle weight of either of which
does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light
motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor
or a road roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which
does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a
driving licence to drive class of “light motor
vehicle” as provided in section 10(2)(d) is
competent to drive a transport vehicle or
omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which
does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or
tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight”
of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to
say, no separate endorsement on the licence
is required to drive a transport vehicle of
light motor vehicle class as enumerated
above. A licence issued under section 10(2)
(d) continues to be valid after Amendment
Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form”.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above quoted
judgment has held that the light motor vehicle
SCCH-17 21 MVC 7288/2023
u/Sec.2(21) of MV Act includes a transport vehicle, the
gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500Kg and
also motor Car or Tractor or a Road roller “unladen
weight” of which does not exceed 7500Kg and in the same
decision it is held that the Driver’s licence given for LMV
could be used for a Transport vehicle if “unladen weight”
does not exceed 7500Kg. A person holding license for
LMV-TR can drive a vehicle upto 7500kg unladen weight.
In the light of the ratio laid down in the decision reported
in 2017 AIR (SC) 3668[Mukund Dewangan V/s Oriental
Ins.Co.Ltd and others], a driver who possesses a Light
Motor Vehicle license can drive any class of vehicle which
comes under LMV category. That is to say no separate
endorsement is required to drive transport vehicle or a
Tractor.
In the recent judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Civil Appeal No.841/2018 between M/s Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Ramba Devi and others
held that, a person with a driving licence for light motor
SCCH-17 22 MVC 7288/2023vehicles (LMV) is entitled to drive transport vehicle of light
motor vehicles having unladen weight not exceeding 7,500
Kgs. Thereby once again the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
its earlier decision in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., thereby it is held that the transport
vehicles, the gross weight of which do not exceed 7,500
Kgs are not excluded from the definition of LMV.
34. In this case, the driver of the offending Tractor
bearing No.KA-42-T-8298 had the driving licence to drive
the tractor. But the said tractor was attached with
trailer. Thereby, merely because the trailer is attached to
the tractor whether the person holding the licence to drive
tractor can drive the tractor along with trailer has to be
looked into. In this regard, Sec.2 (46) and Sec. 2 (48)
speaks about trailer and unladden weight.
(46) “trailer” means any vehicle, other
than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or
intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle.(48) “unladen weight” means the weight
of a vehicle or trailer including all
equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle
or trailer when working, but excluding the
SCCH-17 23 MVC 7288/2023weight of a driver or attendant; and where
alternative parts or bodies are used the
unladen weight of the vehicle means the
weight of the vehicle with the heaviest such
alternative part or body;
35. In this case, the driver of the tractor had the
driving licence to drive the tractor. The front engine
portion of the tractor dashed against the motor cycle of
the deceased. Even though the trailer was attached to the
tractor, the accident was caused by the tractor. No
evidence is available to hold that the total unladden
weight of the trailer and tractor exceeds 7500 Kgs.
Thereby, by applying the above precedent the driver of
Tractor bearing No.KA-42-T-8298 was having driving
licence to drive LMV and also tractor as such, he was
having valid licence to drive Tractor bearing No.
KA-42-T-8298.
36. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on
the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA
No. 200721-2019 between Chidanandaiah and another
SCCH-17 24 MVC 7288/2023
V/s. Shivalingappa Mallappa Biradar and Others,
wherein it is held as follows;
“22. On perusal of the above judgment
where the accident was occurred when the
injured persons were traveled in the trailer,
which was connected with the tractor
driven by the driver. Therefore, in that case
the tractor was insured and trailer was not
insured. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court not fastened the liability on the
owner. There is no second thought in
respect of principle laid down in the case of
Dhondubai (supra) where the facts of these
cases are different. Since in this case
though trailer was connected with tractor,
but the accident was occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver which
was driven by the driver of the tractor and
the tractor was hit on the motorcycle and
caused the death and trailer is nothing to
do with the accident that the accident
caused by the tractor and not by the trailer.
Therefore, the said case is not applicable to
this case, wherein this case tractor was
insured with insurance company.
Therefore, the Trial Court rightly fastened
the liability on the insurance company as
tractor was duly insured with respondent
No.2. Therefore, I answered point No.1 in
favour of claimants as against the
Insurance Company.”
By applying the said precedent in this case the
accident was caused by the engine of tractor bearing No.
SCCH-17 25 MVC 7288/2023
KA-42-T-8298 and the trailer of the said tractor is nothing
to do with the accident. Therefore, as the accident was
caused by the engine bearing No. KA-42-T-8298 the
owner and insurer of the said tractor engine is liable to
pay the compensation.
37. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2
relied on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in MFA No. 23805-2012 between Sadashiva
and others V/s. Dyavakka and others. In the said case,
the offending vehicle was a construction equipment
vehicle (JCB). As such, the driving licence to drive the
said type of vehicle is specially required. In this case, the
offending vehicle is tractor. As such, in my humble
opinion the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 is not applicable to the present case on
hand.
38. Further the respondent No.2 insurance company
taken another defence that the insurance policy produced
at Ex.R2 shows that the policy was issued for the
SCCH-17 26 MVC 7288/2023
agricultural tractors and the accident is in the road as
such, the insurance company is not liable. In this regard,
if we perused the Ex.R2 the sub type of the vehicle is
mentioned as Agricultural Tractors. Thereby the tractor
bearing No. KA-42-T-8298 is duly insured with the
respondent No.2 company. The tractor to travel in the
road also the said insurance policy is valid hence, the
contention urged by the respondent No.2 cannot be
acceptable as there is no evidence is available to hold that
the said tractor was used for some other purpose.
39. In this view of the matter the insurance company
cannot be absolved from its liability to pay compensation.
Therefore the respondents are jointly & severally liable to
pay the compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the
respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the petitioner along with interest @ 6%
p.a. The Respondent No.2 is liable to indemnify the
liability of respondent No.1. Accordingly, this issue
answered in the affirmative.
SCCH-17 27 MVC 7288/2023
ISSUE NO.4:-
40. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioners U/s
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly
allowed with cost.
The petitioners are entitled for total
compensation amount of Rs.25,50,200/-
(Rupees Twenty five lakhs fifty thousand
two hundred only) with interest at the rate
of 6% p.a.,. from the date of petition till the
realization from respondents.
The respondent No.2 - insurance
company is directed to deposit the
compensation amount within 60 days from
the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount, the
petitioner No.1 & 2 are entitled for the
compensation at the ratio of 60:40.
Out of total compensation awarded to
the Petitioner No.1 & 2, 50% shall be
SCCH-17 28 MVC 7288/2023
released in favour petitioner No.1 & 2 on
their proper identification and remaining 50%
shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any
Scheduled Bank, for a period of three years,
in their names.
Advocate fee is fixed at 1,500/-.
Draw the award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer,
corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 03 rd
day of June, 2025).
(KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM)
XIX ADDL.JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & MACT,
BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined on petitioner’s side:
PW1 Sri. Sujatha @ Siddaraju.
List of documents exhibited on petitioner’s side:
Ex.P1 FIR
Ex.P2 Complaint
Ex.P3 Spot mahazar
Ex.P4 Inquest report
Ex.P5 PM report
SCCH-17 29 MVC 7288/2023
Ex.P6 Charge sheet
Ex.P7 Notarized copies of Aadhar cards
Ex.P8 Notarized copy of voter ID card of
deceased
List of witnesses examined on respondents’ side:
RW.1 Sri Bikaram Singh Rana.
List of documents exhibited on respondents’ side:
Ex.R1 Authorization letter
Ex.R2 Insurance policy
Ex.R3 Extract of driving license
(KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM)
XIX ADDL.JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & MACT,
BENGALURU.
Digitally signed
by KANCHI
KANCHI MAYANNA
GOUTAM
MAYANNA Date:
GOUTAM 2025.06.09
17:27:32
+0530