Bangalore District Court
Kumar vs Venkatesh .M on 4 July, 2025
KABC020330082023
BEFORE THE COURT OF 10th ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT:
BENGALURU
(SCCH-16)
Present: Sri. Mohammed Yunus Athani
B.A.,LL.B.,
X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.6927/2023
Dated this 4th day of July, 2025
Petitioner: Kumar S/o Late Palaniswamy,
Aged about 53 years,
R/o No.43, Hendry's Driver Line,
Near Church, K.G.F., Kolar District.
(Sri T. V. Ramesh, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents: 1. M. Venkatesh S/o Muniyappa,
Major,
R/o Beeranakuppa Village,
Parandahalli Post, K.G.F.,
Kolar District.
(Sri M. Shivakumar, Advocate)
2. The Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Company Ltd.,
2 MVC No.6927/2023
Unit No.4, 9th Floor,
Golden Heights Complex,
59th 'C' Cross, Industrial Suburb,
Rajajinagar 4th M Block,
Bengaluru - 10.
(Sri K. Suresh, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 164 of Motor
Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2018, seeking compensation of
Rs.6,00,000/- from the respondents, on account of death of
Palaniswamy, who is father of petitioner No.1, in a road
traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :
On 27-08-2023 at about 7.45 p.m., the deceased
Palaniswamy was walking at Bharathnagar curve at K.G.F.
town, Kolar District. At that time, one motorcycle bearing Reg.
No.KA-08-Y-8320 came from Bangarpet-Bethamangala road,
at high speed, in rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the pedestrian Palaniswamy. Due to said impact, the
3 MVC No.6927/2023deceased knocked down and sustained grievous injuries.
Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to General
Hospital, K.G.F., wherein he took first aid treatment and then
he was shifted to R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar. During the
course of treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 28-08-
2023. The death of Palaniswamy has arose out of use of
motorcycle on the public road. Earlier to the accident, the
deceased was running a petty shop and earning a sum of
Rs.40,000/- per annum. He was contributing his entire
earnings to his family. Due to untimely death of a sole bread
earner, the petitioner is struggling for his livelihood. The
BEML Nagar Police have registered the case for the offences
punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C. The
respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the
insurer of the offending vehicle. Hence, they are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
Therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition and award
compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest.
4 MVC No.6927/2023
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the
respondents No.1 and 2 have appeared through their
counsel. The respondent No.2 has filed its written statement.
Whereas, the respondent No.1 did not choose to file his
written statement.
4. The respondent No.2 in its written statement has
denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has
admitted the issuance of insurance policy in favour of
respondent No.1 in respect of motorcycle bearing No.KA-08-
Y-8320 and its validity as on the date of accident. It seeks
protection under Sections 147 and 150 of Motor Vehicles Act.
It has contended that, the petition is bad for non compliance
of provision under Sections 134(c) and 158(6) of Motor
Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the insured has
knowingly entrusted the vehicle to the rider who had no valid
and effective driving licence to drive the same, independently
on public road and thereby has breached the terms and
5 MVC No.6927/2023
conditions of the policy and has absolved this respondent
from the alleged obligations under the policy. The police have
filed charge-sheet against the rider of the motorcycle for the
offence punishable under Section 3(1) and Section 181 of
Motor Vehicle Act. It has denied the occurrence of the
accident and involvement of the motorcycle in the alleged
accident. It has contended that, the insured vehicle had no
fitness certificate as on the date of accident. The motorcycle
in question did not involve in the accident, nor it has caused
accidental injuries to the deceased and he has not died due to
the accidental injuries. The petitioner in collusion with the
police have created false records and story about the manner
and involvement of the motorcycle to get compensation and
lodged a false complaint and falsely implicated the said
motorcycle. Further it is contended that, as on the date of
accident, the motorcycle was being driven in a reasonable
speed and careful manner and there was no rashness or
negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. The
6 MVC No.6927/2023
accident has occurred due to the negligence on the part of
the deceased, who without having proper lookout at the
vehicular movements of the road, was crossing the road
carelessly and caused the accident. It has denied the age,
avocation and income of the deceased and relationship of
petitioner with the deceased. Further, it has sought for
permission to contest even on behalf of respondent No.1
under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is
contended that, the compensation claimed is highly excessive
and exorbitant. For the above denials and contentions, it has
prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the
following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, the
deceased Palaniswamy S/o Late
Muthuswamy has succumbed to the
injuries sustained in a road traffic
7 MVC No.6927/2023accident, arose out of the usage of
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-
08-Y-8320 on the public road, alleged to
have occurred on 27-08-2023 at about
7:45 P.M., at Bharathnagar curve, K.G.F.
Town, Kolar District ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to
compensation? If so, what is the
quantum and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?
6. In order to prove his case, the petitioner has got
examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 12 documents
as Ex.P.1 to 12. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has
examined its Representative/Deputy Manager as R.W.1 and
got marked 2 documents as Ex.R.1 and 2.
7. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and
perused the entire material placed on record.
8 MVC No.6927/2023
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative
Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative
Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the
following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1: It is the specific case of the petitioner that,
on 27-08-2023 at about 7.45 p.m., when the deceased
Palaniswamy was walking at Bharathnagar curve at K.G.F.
town, Kolar District, the offending motorcycle bearing Reg.
No.KA-08-Y-8320 came from Bangarpet-Bethamangala road,
at high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed to
him. Due to heavy impact, the deceased knocked down and
sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident,
he was shifted to General Hospital, K.G.F., wherein he took
first aid treatment and then he was shifted to R.L. Jalappa
Hospital, Kolar. During the course of treatment, he
9 MVC No.6927/2023
succumbed to the injuries on 28-08-2023. The death of
Palaniswamy has arose out of use of motorcycle on the
public road. Further it is contended that, earlier to the
accident the deceased was running a petty shop and
earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per annum. He was
contributing his entire earnings to his family. Due to
untimely death of a sole bread earner, the petitioner is
struggling for his livelihood.
10. In order to prove his case, the petitioner has got
examined himself as P.W.1 by filing examination-in-chief
affidavit, wherein he has reiterated the entire averments
made in the petition. Further, in support of his oral evidence,
the petitioner has got marked total 12 documents as Ex.P.1
to 12. Out of the said documents, Ex.P.1 is true copy of F.I.R.,
Ex.P.2 is true copy of first information statement, Ex.P.3 is
true copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P.4 is true copy of sketch,
Ex.P.5 is true copy of Motor Vehicle Accident report, Ex.P.6
and 6(a) are true copy of notice under Section 133 of Motor
10 MVC No.6927/2023
Vehicle Act and reply to said notice, Ex.P.7 is true copy of
inquest, Ex.P.8 is true copy of post-mortem report, Ex.P.9 is
true copy of charge-sheet, Ex.P.10 and 11 are notarised
copies of Aadhar card of petitioner and deceased and
Ex.P.12 is notarized copy of ration card.
11. On meticulously going through the above police
documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 9, prima-facia it reveals that,
the accident in question has taken place due to rash and
negligent riding of the rider of offending motorcycle bearing
Reg. No.KA-08-Y-8320 and dashing the same to the
deceased, who was walking at Bharathnagar curve, K.G.F.
town, Kolar District. Due to said impact, the deceased has
fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries on his
head and succumbed to said injuries during the course of
treatment in R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar. The investigation
officer in his final report, marked as Ex.P.9, has clearly stated
that, the said accident is caused due to rash and negligent
11 MVC No.6927/2023
riding of the offending motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-08-Y-
8320.
12. At the outset it is pertinent to note that, in the present
case, the date, time and place of accident, involvement of
motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-08-Y-8320 in the said
accident, issuance of insurance policy by the respondent
No.2 in respect of said motorcycle and its validity as on the
date of accident, are not in dispute. Further, the above oral
and documentary evidence placed on record by the
petitioner has remained undisputed by the respondent
No.1, who is the owner of motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-
08-Y-8320, as he did not choose to file written statement and
contest the case of the petitioner. Whereas, the respondent
No.2 insurance company has denied the above averred facts
and circumstances of the accident and taken specific
defence that, the accident has occurred due to sole
negligence of the deceased, who was crossing the road
carelessly, without having proper look out at vehicular
12 MVC No.6927/2023
movements on the said road and without noticing on
coming vehicles and there was no negligence on the part of
the rider of said motorcycle. Further it is contended that,
the petitioner in collusion with the owner of car and
jurisdictional Police has falsely implicated the said vehicle in
the alleged accident and registered a false case against the
rider of said vehicle, to have wrongful gain from the
respondent No.2 insurance company. But, the respondent
No.2 has failed to establish the said contentions. Except the
self serving statements of the R.W.1, who is the
representative/Deputy Manager of respondent No.2
insurance company, there is absolutely no other
corroborative oral or documentary evidence placed on
record by respondent No.2 to disprove the oral and
documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner.
On the other hand, the oral and documentary evidence
placed on record by the petitioner clearly establishes that,
the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent
13 MVC No.6927/2023
riding of the rider of offending motorcycle bearing Reg.
No.KA-08-Y-8320 and dashing the same to the deceased and
due to said impact the deceased has sustained grievous
injuries on his head and succumbed to the said injuries.
Though, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has cross-
examined P.W.1 in length, nothing worth has been elicited
from his mouth which creates doubt on the veracity of his
evidence or which goes to show that, the said accident has
taken place due to the negligence of the deceased or there
was any contributory negligence on his part in the cause of
accident. Further, the petitioner/P.W.1 has unequivocally
denied the suggestions made in his cross-examination that,
the said accident has taken place due to negligence of the
deceased and there was no fault on the part of the rider of
motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-08-Y-8320.
13. It is pertinent to note that, the petitioner in the
present case is seeking compensation under Sec.164 of
Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, for the death of
14 MVC No.6927/2023
deceased Palaniswamy, in the accident taken place on 27-08-
2023 at about 7.45 p.m., on Bharathnagar curve, at K.G.F.
Town, Kolar District, arose out of the usage of motorcycle
bearing Reg. No.KA-08-Y-8320. It is settled proposition of law
that, under Sec.164 of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act,
2019, the claimant need not require to establish that, the
death is caused due to any wrongful act or negligence or
default on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the
accident or of the concerned or of any other person. But
they have to prove the involvement of said vehicle in the
alleged accident, resulting in the injury or death of a person.
14. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record
by the petitioner clearly establishes that, the accident in
question has taken place due to rash and negligent riding of
the rider of motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-08-Y-8320 and
dashing the same to the deceased pedestrian. Further it
reveals that, due to impact, the deceased Palaniswamy
sustained grievous injuries on his head and succumbed to
15 MVC No.6927/2023
said injuries during the course of treatment at R.L. Jalappa
Hospital, Kolar. The investigation officer in his final report,
marked as Ex.P.9, has clearly stated that, the said accident is
caused due to rash and negligent riding of the offending
motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-08-Y-8320. Admittedly, the
Ex.P.9 final report/charge-sheet has neither been challenged
by the owner or rider of motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-08-
Y-8320. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to
believe the final report of the investigation officer and other
police records, regarding the date, time and place of
accident, involvement of motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-08-
Y-8320 in the said accident, the injuries sustained by the
deceased in the said accident and the cause of his death.
15. The liability under Sec.164 of Motor Vehicles
(Amendment) Act, 2019, is on the principle of no fault. The
petitioner need not require to establish that, the death is
caused due to any wrongful act or negligence or default on
the part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident
16 MVC No.6927/2023
or of the concerned or of any other person. The Sec.164 of
Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, reads as follows:
164. Payment of compensation in case of
death or grievous hurt, etc. – (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Act or in any other law for the time being in
force or instrument having the force of law,
the owner of the motor vehicle or the
authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the
case of death or grievous hurt due to any
accident arising out of the use of motor
vehicle, a compensation, of a sum of five lakh
rupees in case of death or of two and a half
lakh rupees in case of grievous hurt to the
legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.
(2) In any claim for compensation
under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not
be required to plead or establish that the
death or grievous hurt in respect of which the
claim has been made was due to any wrongful
act or neglect or default of the owner of the
vehicle or of the vehicle concerned or of any
other person.
(3) Where, in respect of death or grievous
hurt due to an accident arising out of the use
17 MVC No.6927/2023
of motor vehicle, compensation has been paid
under any other law for the time being in
force, such amount of compensation shall be
reduced from the amount of compensation
payable under this section.
16. Therefore, in the light of above provision of law and
for the above stated reasons, this Court is of the considered
opinion that, the petitioner has successfully proved that, the
deceased Palaniswamy has succumbed to the injuries
sustained in a road traffic accident taken place on 27-08-
2023 at about 7:45 p.m., on Bharathnagar curver, at K.G.F.
Town, Kolar District, arose out of the usage of motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-08-Y-8320 on the public road.
Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in Affirmative.
17. Issue No.2: While answering above issue, for the
reasons stated therein, this Court has already held that, the
petitioner has successfully proved through cogent and
corroborative evidence that, the deceased Palaniswamy has
succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road traffic
18 MVC No.6927/2023
accident taken place on 27-08-2023 at about 7:45 p.m., on
Bharathnagar curver, at K.G.F. Town, Kolar District, arose
out of the usage of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-
08-Y-8320 on the public road. Now the petitioner is required
to establish that, he is the legal representative of the
deceased Palaniswamy. In this regard, he has produced the
notarised copy of Aadhar card of the deceased and himself
and his family ration card, which are marked as Ex.P.10 to
12. The said documents clearly goes to show that, the
petitioner is son of deceased Palaniswamy. The validity of
said documents in not disputed by the respondents. Further
it is pertinent to note that, the relationship of the petitioner
with the deceased is not specifically denied by the
respondent No.2. In such circumstances, there is no
impediment to believe the above documents produced by
the petitioner and hold that, the petitioner is the legal
representative of deceased Palaniswamy.
19 MVC No.6927/2023
18. Now coming to the point of quantum of compensation
for which the petitioner is entitled is concerned, every legal
representative who suffers on account of vehicle accident,
should have remedy for realization of compensation.
Further, if the age the petitioner is taken into consideration,
it clearly goes to show that, the petitioner has lost the love
and affection, as well as the care of the deceased. By taking
into consideration of all these factors along with the
evidence of P.W.1, it is crystal clear that, the petitioner is the
legal representative of the deceased Palaniswamy. Hence,
this Court is of the opinion that, the petitioner is entitled to
claim compensation.
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of National
Insurance Co. V/s Birender, reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356,
has clearly held that,
” The legal representatives of the
deceased could move application for
compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section
166(1). The major married son who is also
earning and not fully dependant on the
20 MVC No.6927/2023
deceased, would be still covered by the
expression “legal representative” of the
deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera (supra)
had expounded that liability to pay
compensation under the Act does not cease
because of absence of dependency of the
concerned legal representative. Notably, the
expression “legal representative” has not been
defined in the Act.
The Tribunal has a duty to make an
award, determine the amount of compensation
which is just and proper and specify the person
or persons to whom such compensation would
be paid. The latter part relates to the
entitlement of compensation by a person who
claims for the same.
It is thus settled by now that the legal
representatives of the deceased have a right to
apply for compensation. Having said that, it
must necessarily follow that even the major
married and earning sons of the deceased
being legal representatives have a right to
apply for compensation and it would be the
bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the
application irrespective of the fact whether the
concerned legal representative was fully
dependent on the deceased and not to limit the
claim towards conventional heads only.”
20. According to the ratio laid down in above cited
decision, the legal representatives though were not fully
dependent on the income of deceased, are entitled to claim
21 MVC No.6927/2023
compensation under all the heads i.e., under both
conventional and non-conventional heads.
21. As per the provision of Sec.164 of Motor Vehicles Act
(Amendment), 2019, the owner of the vehicle or the
authorised insurer shall be liable to pay compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- in the case of death or and Rs.2,50,000/- in
case of grievous injury, due to any accident arising out of the
use of motor vehicle. As per the said provision, there is fixed
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid in case of death.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, the petitioner is
entitled for just and reasonable compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/-, for the death of Palaniswamy in a motor
vehicle accident occurred out of the usage of motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-08-Y-8320 on the public road,
belonging to the respondent No.1.
22. In so far as awarding of interest on the compensation
is concerned in, MFA No. 103557/16 between Sri Ram
22 MVC No.6927/2023
General Ins. Co. Ltd., V/s. Smt. Lakshmi and Others (D.D.
20.3.2018), the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka on detailed
discussions has fixed the rate of interest @ 6% p.a., holding
that as per Sec.34 of C.P.C., the rate of interest that can be
awarded on judgments cannot be more than 6% p.a. Since,
Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act provides for interest on
judgments, the interest to be awarded in claim petitions has
to be 6% p.a. and not more than that. Hence, in the present
case, interest @ 6% per annum on the compensation
amount, is awarded.
23. Liability: Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the
respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the
insurer of offending motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-
08-Y-8320. Further, the evidence placed on record by the
petitioner clearly establishes that, the deceased
Palaniswamy has succumbed to injuries sustained in a road
traffic accident occurred out of usage of offending
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-08-Y-8320 on the
23 MVC No.6927/2023
public road. In such circumstances, the respondent No.1
being the owner of offending vehicle involved in the
accident is liable to compensate for the damage caused by
the said vehicle. The respondent No.2 being the insurer of
the said vehicle has to indemnify the respondent No.1.
Therefore, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
24. But, the respondent No.2 has taken specific defence
that, as on the date of accident the rider of offending two-
wheeler bearing Reg. No.KA-08-Y-8320 was not holding valid
driving licence to drive the said vehicle and the respondent
No.1 knowing that his rider was not having valid and
effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle, has
entrusted his vehicle to him. There is breach of fundamental
condition of the policy. Hence, the respondent No.2
insurance company is not liable to indemnify the
insured/owner of offending vehicle i.e. respondent No.1. In
such circumstances, the burden was on the respondent No.1
24 MVC No.6927/2023
to establish that, as on the date of accident the rider of
offending vehicle was holding valid & effective driving
licence to drive the said vehicle, which he has failed to
discharge in the present case, as he did not choose file
written statement and contest the case of the petitioner.
Even, there is no document placed on record by the
petitioner to show that, as on the date of accident the rider
of offending motorcycle was holding valid & effective driving
licence to ride the said vehicle.
25. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently
argued that, as per the Ex.P.9 final report/charge-sheet, at
the time accident the accused/rider of offending motorcycle
bearing Reg. No.KA-08-Y-8320 was not holding driving
licence to ride the said vehicle and hence in addition to the
offence punishable under Sec.279 and 304(A) of I.P.C., he
has been charge-sheeted for offence punishable
U/Sec.181(3) of Motor Vehicles Act. As there is breach of
fundamental term and condition of the policy, the
25 MVC No.6927/2023
respondent No.2 insurance company is not liable to
indemnify the insured/owner of offending vehicle i.e.
respondent No.1. Hence, the petition against the
respondent No.2 insurance company is liable to be
dismissed.
26. On the other hand, the learned counsel for petitioner
vehemently argued that, it is settled principle of law that,
even if there is a fundamental breach of any condition
recognised under Sec.149(2) of Motor vehicles Act, the
insurance company is liable to pay the third party and
recover the same from the insured.
27. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the
respondent No.2, as per the Ex.P.3 final report/charge-sheet,
at the time accident the accused/rider of offending
motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-08-Y-8320 was not holding
driving licence to ride the said vehicle and hence in addition
to the offence punishable under Sec.279 and 304(A) of I.P.C.,
26 MVC No.6927/2023
he has been charge-sheeted for offence punishable
U/Sec.181(3) of Motor Vehicles Act and admittedly the said
final report/charge-sheet has not been challenged either by
the rider or the owner offending motorcycle. Further it is
pertinent to note that, the respondent No.1 in his Ex.P.6(a)
reply to notice issued under Sec.133 of Motor Vehicles Act
has clearly stated that, as on the date of accident the rider of
his motorcycle was not holding driving licence to ride the
said vehicle. Further, the respondent No.1 though appeared
in the case through his counsel, did not choose to file his
written statement and contest the case of the petitioner.
Even he has not produced any documents pertaining to his
vehicle. In such circumstances and for the above stated
reasons, it can safely be held that, the respondent
No.1/owner of offending vehicle was having knowledge that,
as on the date of accident his son/rider of offending two-
wheeler was not holding driving licence to ride the said
27 MVC No.6927/2023
vehicle and he had consciously handed over his vehicle to a
person who did not possess driving licence.
28. Therefore, in such circumstances, the respondent No.1
cannot be permitted to take the benefit of his wrong and the
respondent No.2/Insurance Company is entitled to raise a
defence under Sec.149(2) of Motor Vehicles Act. Further, as
the accident in question has taken place after the date of
coming into force of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019,
the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for
petitioner that, even if there is a fundamental breach of any
condition recognised under Sec.149(2) of Motor vehicles Act
the insurance company is liable to pay the third party and
recover from the insured, does not hold good. Therefore, for
the above stated reasons and in the light of ratio laid down
in the above cited decisions, this Court is of the considered
opinion that, as there is breach of fundamental terms and
conditions of the insurance policy by the
insured/respondent No.1 in respect to offending motorcycle
28 MVC No.6927/2023
bearing Reg. No.KA-08-Y-8320, the respondent No.2
insurance company is not liable to indemnify the respondent
No.1. Accordingly, holding that, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondent No.1,
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till its realization, I answer Issue No.2 in Partly
Affirmative.
29. Issue No.3: In view of the above findings, I proceed to
pass the following order:
ORDER
The petition is partly allowed with
costs.
The petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees
five lakh only) with interest at the rate
of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till
realisation.
The respondent No.1 is directed to
pay the above compensation amount to
29 MVC No.6927/2023the petitioner within one month from
the date of this order.
Entire compensation amount
awarded in favour of petitioner, with
proportionate interest shall be released
in his favour, through e-payment on
proper identification and verification.
The petition against respondent
No.2 is dismissed.
Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on computer, typed by him,
corrected and then pronounced in the open Court this the 4th day of July, 2025)(Mohammed Yunus Athani)
Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners
P.W.1: Kumar S/o Late Palaniswamy
Documents marked on behalf of petitioners
Ex.P.1: True copy of F.I.R.
30 MVC No.6927/2023 Ex.P.2 : True copy of First Information Statement Ex.P.3: True copy of Spot Mahazar Ex.P.4: True copy of Sketch Ex.P.5: True copy of M.V.A. Report Ex.P.6 & True copy of Notice under Section 133 of 6(a) : Motor Vehicle Act and reply to said notice Ex.P.7: True copy of Inquest Ex.P.8: True copy of Post-mortem Report Ex.P.9: True copy of Charge-sheet Ex.P.10 & Notarized copy of Aadhar cards of the 11: petitioner and deceased Ex.P.12: Notarized copy of Ration Card
Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents
R.W.1: Santhosh S/o Ramachandraiah
Documents marked on behalf of respondents
Ex.R.1: Authorization Letter
Ex.R.2: True copy of Insurance Policy(Mohammed Yunus Athani)
Member, MACT, Bengaluru.