Bangalore District Court
Shaik Fareed vs Reshma Parveen on 16 June, 2025
KABC020144702022
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.2513/2022
Dated this 16th day of June, 2025
Petitioners: 1. Shaik Fareed S/o Sab Jan Sab,
Aged about 64 years,
2. Shama Parveen W/o Fairoj Khan,
Aged about 40 years,
3. Shaik Imran S/o Shaik Fareed,
Aged about 35 years,
4. Shaik Irfan S/o Shaik Fareed,
Aged about 33 years,
Petitioners No.1, 3 and 4 residing at
No.264, J.B. Kaval, Rajiv Gandhi
Nagar, Bengaluru - 96.
Petitioner No.2 residing at No.49,
II Cross, near MC Convention Hall,
Nagareshwara Nagenahalli,
2 MVC No.2513/2022
Bengaluru North.
(Sri B. S. Manjunath, Advocate)
V/s
Respondents: 1. Reshma Parveen W/o Afroz Khan,
R/at No.33/51, III Main,
Nanjundeshwar Nagar,
Nandini Layout, Bengaluru - 96.
(RC owner of car bearing
Reg. No.KA-04-MR-5890)
(Ex-parte)
2. Madhu N. Rao,
R/at No.L-62, Simhalaya Kirloskar
Colony, near Arabindo School,
III Stage, Basaveshwara Nagar,
Bengaluru - 79.
(Previous RC owner of car
bearing Reg. No.KA-04-MR-5890)
(Sri Adinarayana, Advocate)
3. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance
Company Limited,
No.32, Ground Floor, TBR Tower,
Adjacent to Jain College,
I Cross, Mission Road,
Bengaluru - 27.
(I.P. No.OG-22-1701-1801-00003040,
3 MVC No.2513/2022
valid from 07-05-2021 to 6-07-2022)
(Sri Sunil Kumar K.N., Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-
from the respondents, on account of death of Syeda
Siddikha Banu, who is wife of petitioner No.1 and mother of
petitioners No.2 to 4, in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 13-02-2022 at about 10:30 a.m., the deceased Syeda
Siddikha Banu was occupant in a car bearing Reg. No.KA-04-
MR-5890, traveling along with her daughter’s family members
and another relative, all were proceeding from Bengaluru to
Chitradurga, on NH-04 i.e., on Bengaluru-Hiriyur road. The
driver Afroz Khan, who is the son-in-law of deceased, was
driving the said car at high speed, in reckless, rash and
negligent manner. While so proceeding, near Ravi Dhaba,
4 MVC No.2513/2022Adivala Village, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District, due to over
speed he lost control over the car, jumped the car over the
center median and got capsized on the other side of the road.
Due to the said impact, all the inmates have sustained severe
injuries, the driver Afroz Khan died on the spot and deceased
Syeda Siddikha Banu sustained multiple fatal injuries.
Immediately she was shifted to Government Hospital, Hiriyur,
wherein first aid treatment was given and then she was
shifted to Basaveshwara Medical College Hospital,
Chitradurga, wherein during the course of treatment on the
same day she succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said
accident. Earlier to the accident, the deceased was house wife
rendering valuable services to her family, doing all household
works independently and also taking care of her entire family
members, the claimants are depended upon the services of
the deceased. The Hiriyur Rural Police have registered the
case against the driver of the said car for the offences
punishable under Section 279 and 338 of I.P.C. The
5 MVC No.2513/2022respondent No.1 is the owner, respondent No.2 is the
previous owner and respondent No.3 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.40,00,000/- with interest.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the
respondents No.2 and 3 have appeared through their counsel
and filed their separate written statements. Whereas, the
respondent No.1 did not choose to appear and remained
absent. Hence, the respondent No.1 is placed as ex-parte.
4. The respondent No.2 in his written statement has denied
all the allegations made in the petition. He has contended
that, he is the previous owner of the car bearing Reg. No.KA-
04-MR-5890 and the said car was sold to respondent No.1
through one of the used car dealers. The said car was
handed over on 18-01-2021 to one Naveen K.J., car dealer.
6 MVC No.2513/2022
He has also received a cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- towards sale
consideration of the car from said Naveen and transferred
the said car in favour of respondent No.1, as per the rules of
Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 has
become the registered owner of the said car on February
2021. Further it is contended that, he had taken insurance
cover from HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited
and the said insurance was valid upto 6th May 2021. From 6th
May 2021, the sole responsibility for renewal of insurance
policy was on the respondent No.1. The alleged accident has
taken place on 13-02-2022, which is almost one year after
the said vehicle was transferred/sold. Hence, there is no role
of respondent No.2 in the said case and he is not proper and
necessary party to the case. For the above denials and
contentions, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Likewise, the respondent No.3 in its written statement
has denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has
admitted the issuance package policy bearing No.OG-22-
7 MVC No.2513/2022
1701-1801-00003040 in favour of respondent No.2, in
respect of vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-04-MR-5890 and it was
valid from 07-05-2021 to 06-05-2022. It has denied the
manner of accident and also involvement of the vehicle
bearing No.KA-05-MR-5890 in the alleged accident. It has
contended that, the driver of the vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-
04-MR-5890 was not holding valid and effective driving
licence to drive the said vehicle at the time of the alleged
accident. His driving licence had expired before the date of
accident. Thus, the respondent No.2 has violated the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and also committed the
breach of the terms and conditions of the policy by
permitting an unlicensed driver to drive the said vehicle and
not intimating the respondent No.3 insurance company
about the transfer of insured vehicle in favour of the
respondent No.1. Hence, it will not be liable to indemnify the
respondents No.1 and 2. Further it seeks protection under
Section 147 and 149 of Motor Vehicles Act, 150(2) of new act.
8 MVC No.2513/2022
Further it is contended that, the petition is bad for non
compliance of provisions under Sections 134(c) and 158(6) of
Motor Vehicles Act. It has denied the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the car bearing Reg. No.KA-04-MR-
5890. It has denied the age and avocation of the deceased,
injuries sustained, medical expenses and cause of death of
the deceased. It has sought permission to contest even on
behalf of respondent No.1, as per 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 is prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the
following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that,
deceased Syeda Siddikha Banu has
succumbed to the injuries sustained in
vehicular accident, alleged to have been
9 MVC No.2513/2022occurred on 13-02-2022 at about 10.30
a.m., due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the Car bearing
Reg. No. KA-04-MR-5890 ?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to
compensation? If so, what is the
quantum and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?
7. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 has
got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 14
documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14. On the other hand, the
respondent No.3 has examined F.D.A. of RTO, Bengaluru
West and its Assistant Manager as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and got
marked 6 documents as Ex.R.1 to 6 and closed its side. The
respondent No.2 has not adduced any evidence on his
behalf.
10 MVC No.2513/2022
8. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and
perused the entire material placed on record.
9. 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
10. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioners that, on
13-02-2022 at about 10:30 a.m., the deceased Syeda
Siddikha Banu was occupant in a car bearing Reg. No.KA-04-
MR-5890, traveling along with her daughter’s family
members and another relative, all were proceeding from
Bengaluru to Chitradurga, on NH-04 i.e., on Bengaluru-
Hiriyur road. The driver Afroz Khan, who is the son-in-law of
deceased, was driving the said car at high speed, in reckless,
rash and negligent manner. While so proceeding, near Ravi
11 MVC No.2513/2022
Dhaba, Adivala Village, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District,
due to over speed he lost control over the car, jumped the
car over the center median and got capsized on the other
side of the road. Due to the said impact, all the inmates have
sustained severe injuries, the driver Afroz Khan died on the
spot and deceased Syeda Siddikha Banu sustained multiple
fatal injuries. Immediately she was shifted to Government
Hospital, Hiriyur, wherein first aid treatment was given and
then she was shifted to Basaveshwara Medical College
Hospital, Chitradurga, wherein during the course of
treatment on the same day she succumbed to the injuries
sustained in the said accident. Further it is contended that,
earlier to the accident, the deceased was house wife
rendering valuable services to her family, doing all
household works independently and also taking care of her
entire family members. Due to untimely death, the claimants
have lost the valuable services of the deceased.
12 MVC No.2513/2022
11. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 has
got examined himself as P.W.1 by filing his examination-in-
chief affidavit, wherein he has reiterated the entire
averments made in the petition. Further, in support of their
oral evidence, the petitioners have got marked total 14
documents as Ex.P.1 to 14. Out of the said documents,
Ex.P.1 is certified copy of F.I.R., Ex.P.2 is certified copy of first
information statement, Ex.P.3 is certified copy of sketch,
Ex.P.4 is certified copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P.5 is certified
copy of inquest, Ex.P.6 is certified copy of post-mortem
report, Ex.P.7 is certified copy of Motor Vehicle Accident
report, Ex.P.8 is certified copy of charge-sheet, Ex.P.9 to 13
are notarized copy of Aadhar cards of petitioners No.1 to 4
and deceased and Ex.P.14 is certified copy of death
certificate of Syeda.
12. On meticulously going through the police documents
marked as Ex.P.1 to 8, prima-facia it reveals that, the
accident in question has taken place due to rash and
13 MVC No.2513/2022
negligent driving of the driver of offending car bearing Reg.
No.KA-04-MR-5890. Due to over speed the driver has lost the
control over his car, jumped the car over center median and
got it capsized on the other side of the road. Due to said
impact, all the inmates of the car have sustained severe
injuries, the driver Afroz Khan died on the spot and the
deceased has sustained multiple fatal injuries. Immediately
she was shifted to Government Hospital, Hiriyur, wherein
first aid treatment was given and then she was shifted to
Basaveshwara Medical College Hospital, Chitradurga,
wherein during the course of treatment on the same day
she succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident.
The investigation officer in his final report, marked as Ex.P.8,
has clearly stated that, the said accident is caused due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car
bearing Reg. No.KA-04-MR-5890 and the deceased Syeda
Siddikha Banu has sustained multiple fatal injuries and
succumbed to said injuries during the course of treatment.
14 MVC No.2513/2022
13. At the outset, is it pertinent to note that, in the present
case, the date, time and place of accident, involvement of
offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-04-MR-5890 in the said
accident, issuance of insurance policy in favour of the
respondent No.1 in respect of offending car bearing Reg.
No.KA-04-MR-5890 and its validity as on the date of accident,
are not in dispute. Further, it is also not disputed that, the
deceased Syeda Siddikha Banu was occupant in the
offending car at the time of accident. Further, the oral and
documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner
has remained undisputed by the owner of offending
vehicle/Respondent No.1, as she did not choose appear and
contest the case of the petitioner. The respondent No.2, who
is previous owner of offending vehicle has not denied the
manner and cause of accident. Whereas, the respondent
No.3 insurance company though has specifically denied the
above averred facts and circumstances of the accident, it has
failed to rebut the oral and documentary evidence placed on
15 MVC No.2513/2022
record by the petitioner with respect to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of offending vehicle and the cause of
accident. Except the self serving statements of the R.W.2,
who is the Assistant Manager of respondent No.3 insurance
company, there is absolutely no other oral or documentary
evidence placed on record by the respondent No.3 to show
that, the accident in question has not taken place due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car
bearing Reg. No.KA-04-MR-5890. 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 driving of the driver of
offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-04-MR-5890. Though, the
learned counsel for respondent No.3 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 establishes that, the said accident has not taken
16 MVC No.2513/2022
place due to negligence of the driver of the offending
vehicle.
14. The Ex.P.3 sketch and Ex.P.4 spot mahazer clearly goes
to show that, the said accident has taken place on NH-04
Bengaluru-Hiriyur road, near Ravi Dhaba, Adivala village,
Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District. It clearly reveals that, due
to over speed the driver of offending car bearing Reg.
No.KA-04-MR-5890 has lost control over his vehicle and
jumped the car over center median of the road and capsized
the same on the other side of the road. Further it is
pertinent to note, as per Ex.P.7 Motor Vehicle Accident
Report, the accident is not caused due to any mechanical
defects in the vehicle involved in the accident. When the
accident has not taken place due to the any mechanical
defects in the offending vehicle and there is no other vehicle
involved in the accident, then in the present facts and
circumstances of the case, it can be presumed that, the said
accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
17 MVC No.2513/2022
the driver of offending vehicle. There is absolutely no
material on record to disbelieve the oral and documentary
evidence placed on record by the petitioner. In such
circumstances and in the light of above observations, it can
safely be held that, the respondent has failed to rebut the
oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the
petitioner regarding the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-04-MR-5890.
15. Further, the Ex.P.7 Post-motem report, clearly speaks
that, the deceased Syeda Siddikha Bhanu has died due to
head injury sustained due to blunt force impact, sustained in
the road traffic accident. The investigation officer in the final
report/charge-sheet, which is marked as Ex.P.8 has clearly
stated that, the said accident has taken place due to
negligent driving of the driver of offending car bearing
No.KA-04-MR-5890 and the deceased Syeda Siddikha Banu
has sustained multiple fatal injuries in the said accident and
succumbed to said injuries during the course of treatment.
18 MVC No.2513/2022
Admittedly, the said final report/charge-sheet has not been
challenged by the owner of offending car bearing Reg.
No.KA-04-MR-5890. In such circumstances, there is no
impediment to believe the final report filed by the
investigation officer and other police records, with regard to
date, time and place of accident, involvement of the
offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-04-MR-5890 in the said
accident, negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle,
injuries caused to deceased Syeda Siddikha Banu in the said
accident and the cause of her death.
16. Further, it is well settled principle of law that, in a case
relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are not
required to prove the case as required to be done in a
criminal trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of
Parameshwari V/s Amir Chand and others, reported in
(2011) SCC 635, has clearly held that, “in a road accident
claim cases the strict principle of proof as in a criminal case
are not required.”
19 MVC No.2513/2022
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bimla Devi
and others V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation
and others, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 513, has clearly held
that, “in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the
claimants are merely required to establish their case on
touch stone of preponderance of probability and the
standard of proof on beyond reasonable doubt could not be
applied.”
18. Therefore, in the light of observations made in the
above cited decisions and for the above stated reasons, this
Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioners have
successfully proved through cogent and corroborative
evidence that, the deceased Syeda Siddikha Banu has
succumbed to grievous injuries sustained in motor vehicle
accident, occurred on 13-02-2022 at about 10:30 a.m., on
NH-04 Bengaluru-Hiriyur road, near Ravi Dhaba, Adivala
Village, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District, due to the rash
20 MVC No.2513/2022
and negligent driving of the driver of car bearing Reg.
No.KA-04-MR-5890. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in
Affirmative.
19. Issue No.2: While answering the above issue, for the
reasons stated therein, this Court has come to conclusion
that, the petitioners have successfully proved through
cogent and corroborative evidence that, the accident has
taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
car bearing No.KA-04-MR-5890 and due to said impact the
deceased Syeda Siddikha Banu has sustained multiple fatal
injuries and succumbed to said injuries. Now the petitioners
are required to establish that, they are the legal
representatives of the deceased. In this regard, they have
produced their respective Aadhar cards and Aadhar card of
the deceased, which are marked as Ex.P.9 to 13. The said
documents clearly goes to show that, the petitioner No.1 is
husband and petitioner No.2 to 4 are children of the
deceased Syeda Siddikha Banu. On the other hand, the
21 MVC No.2513/2022
relationship of the petitioners with the deceased Syeda
Siddikha Banu is not specifically denied by the respondents.
In such circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the
documents produced by the petitioners and hold that, the
petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased Syeda
Siddikha Banu.
20. 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
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
22 MVC No.2513/2022
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.”
21. According to the ratio laid down in above decision, the
legal representatives though not fully dependent on the
deceased are entitled to claim compensation under all the
heads i.e., under both conventional and non-conventional
heads. In order to determine the compensation, the age,
avocation, income, dependency, future prospects of the
deceased and other conventional heads are to be
ascertained.
23 MVC No.2513/2022
22. The compensation towards loss of dependency: The
oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the
petitioners clearly establishes that, the petitioners are the
legal representatives of the deceased and they were
depending on the income of the deceased. Hence, they are
entitled for compensation under the head of loss of
dependency. In order to calculate the loss of dependency,
the first step is to determine the age and income of the
deceased.
i) Age and income of the deceased: The
petitioners have averred that, the age of deceased as on the
date of accident was 57 years. To substantiate this point, the
petitioners have produced the Aadhar card of the deceased,
which is marked as Ex.P.13, wherein the date of birth of the
deceased is mentioned as 20-09-1964. Admittedly, the
accident has taken place on 13-02-2022. Therefore, as on the
date of accident the age of the deceased was about 57
years. The petitioners have averred that, as on the date of
24 MVC No.2513/2022
accident the deceased was hale and healthy and she was
house wife, rendering valuable services to her family, doing
all household works independently and also taking care of
her entire family members and due to her untimely death,
they have lost the valuable services of the deceased. But, the
petitioners have failed to establish the said contentions.
Admittedly, the deceased being a household and non
earning member of the family, the notional income is to be
considered, as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority.
a) The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the cases
of, G. T. Basavaraj V/s Niranjan and another, in MFA
No.7781/2016, judgment dated 11-08-2022, Ramanna and
another V/s Y. B. Mahesh and another in MFA
No.140/2017, judgment dated 16-01-2020 and New India
Assurance Co. Ltd., V/s Anusaya and others in MFA
No.101195/2014, judgment dated 05-01-2023, has clearly
held that, “when the income of the deceased is not proved,
25 MVC No.2513/2022
then the notional income as per the guidelines issued by
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is to be adopted as
the income of the deceased.”
b) Admittedly the accident took place in the year
2022. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased as per
the guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority is to be treated as Rs. 15,500/- per month.
Therefore, the annual income of the deceased in the present
case is held as Rs.1,86,000/-.
ii) As per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
V/s Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC
680, the legal heirs of deceased are also entitled for future
prospects of the deceased, though she was not a permanent
employee as on the date of death. Since the deceased was
aged about 57 years and was not a permanent employee,
the future prospects would be 10% of his income, which
comes to Rs.18,600/- per annum. Therefore, the future
26 MVC No.2513/2022
prospects of the deceased is held as Rs.18,600/-. If this
income is added to the notional income, then it comes to
Rs.2,04,600/- per annum. Further, the annual income of the
deceased comes within the exemption limits as per Income
Tax Act.
iii) The deduction of personal expenses and
calculating the multiplier: The family of the deceased
consist of 4 persons i.e., petitioners No.1 to 4. The total
number of the dependents of the deceased are four.
Therefore, deduction towards the personal expenses of
deceased is taken as 1/4th of the total income, which comes
to Rs.51,150/- per annum. After deducting 1/4th out of total
income, towards the personal expenses of deceased, the
annual income of the deceased is held as Rs.1,53,450/-.
iv) As on the date of death, the age of the deceased
was 57 years. As per the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others V/s
Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in
27 MVC No.2513/2022
2009 ACJ 1298 S.C., the appropriate multiplier in the present
case is taken as 9. Accordingly, the compensation under the
head of loss of dependency is held as Rs.1,53,450/- x 9 =
Rs.13,81,050/-.
v) Compensation under conventional heads: In
the present case, admittedly the petitioner No.1 is husband
and petitioners No.2 to 4 are children of deceased Syeda
Siddikha Banu. Hence, the petitioners No.1 to 4 are entitled
for compensation under the head of spousal and parental
consortium. As per the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd.
V/s Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC
680, the compensation under the following conventional
heads is awarded:
a) Loss of estate - Rs. 15,000/-
b) Loss of consortium - Rs. 40,000/- each
c) Funeral expenses - Rs. 15,000/-
28 MVC No.2513/2022
The compensation under above heads has to be
enhanced 10% for every 3 years. Seven years have been
lapsed from the date of the judgment. Therefore, the
compensation under the above conventional heads is
enhanced by 20%, the loss of estate comes to Rs.18,000/-,
the loss of spousal and parental consortium comes to
Rs.48,000/- each to petitioners No.1 to 4 and funeral
expenses comes to Rs.18,000/-.
23. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation under different heads as follows :
Sl. Head of
Amount/Rs
No. Compensation
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 13,81,050-00
2. Loss of spousal and Rs. 1,92,000-00
parental consortium
3. Loss of estate Rs. 18,000-00
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000-00
Total Rs. 16,09,050-00
29 MVC No.2513/2022
24. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, in the case of
Chandrakala W/o Lokesh V/s Dilipkumar M. A. S/o
Amasaiah, in MFA No.1662/2023 (MV-D), dated 02-07-
2024, has clearly held that, “Since the amount due under
the head loss of future prospects is yet to become due, it
would be illogical and illegal to direct the insurance
company to pay interest on loss of future prospects.”
25. Therefore, in the light of ratio laid down in the above
cited decisions and for the above stated reasons, this Court
is of the considered opinion that, the petitioners No.1 to 4
are entitled for compensation of Rs.16,09,050/-, with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of
petition till its realization (excluding interest on future
prospects amount of Rs.18,600/- x 9 x 3/4 = Rs.1,25,550/-).
26. Liability: Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the
respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.3 is the
insurer of the offending vehicle. Further, the evidence
30 MVC No.2513/2022
placed on record by the petitioner clearly establishes that,
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending
car bearing Reg. No. KA-04-MR-5890, the accident in
question has occurred and the deceased Syeda Siddikha
Banu has succumbed to multiple fatal injuries sustained in
the said accident. In such circumstances, the respondent
No.1 being the owner of said vehicle is vicariously liable to
compensate for the damage caused by the said vehicle. The
respondent No.3 being the insurer of the said vehicle has to
indemnify the respondent No.1.
27. The respondent No.3 has taken a contention that, the
respondent No.1 has handed over her offending vehicle to
her husband namely Afroz Khan S/o Hussain Khan, who was
not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the
said vehicle, as on the date of accident. The driving licence of
said Afroz Khan S/o Hussain Khan was valid for the period
from 18-05-2001 to 17-05-2021. The said driving licence has
expired on 17-05-2021 and thereafter, it has not been
31 MVC No.2513/2022
renewed. Therefore, it is clear that, as on the date of
accident i.e., on 13-02-2022 the accused/driver of offending
car was not holding valid and effective driving licence to
drive the insured vehicle. Further it is contended that, in
order to have wrongful gain the petitioners colluding with
the police authority and respondents No.1 and 2 has
managed to file the charge-sheet against the accused,
without invoking Section 3(1), 180, 181 of Motor Vehicles Act.
Hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation to the
petitioners.
28. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 insurance
company vehemently argued that, the Ex.R.6 Insurance
Policy clearly speaks that, the policy covers the risk provided
the driver of insured vehicle holds an effective driving
licence at the time of accident and he is not disqualified
from holding or obtaining such a licence. The respondent
No.1 has not produced any document to show that, as on
the date of accident the driver of offending vehicle was
32 MVC No.2513/2022
holding valid & effective driving licence to drive the said
vehicle. In such circumstances, the respondent No.1/owner
of offending vehicle, who has consciously handed over his
vehicle to a person who did not possess driving licence
cannot be permitted to take the benefit of her wrong and
the respondent No.3/Insurance Company is entitled to raise
a defence under Sec.149(2) of Motor Vehicles Act and it is
not liable to indemnify the insured. In support of his
arguments, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 has
relied on the following decisions:
i. Hemalatha @ Hema @ Hemavathi W/o
Renukappa and others V/s Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance Company Ltd., and
another, in MFA No.6154/2019 (MV-D),
dated 14-12-2023.
ii. M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
V/s Sri Manjunatha S/o Late Devaraja, in
33 MVC No.2513/2022
MFA No.7018/2023 (MV-D) C/W MFA
No.2658/2024 (MV-D).
29. On the other hand, the learned counsel for petitioner
vehemently argued that, it is settled principle of law that, the
insurance company is liable to pay the third party and
recover from the insured, even if there is a fundamental
breach of any condition recognised under Sec.149(2) of
Motor vehicles Act.
30. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, it is
relevant to refer the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka, in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Bijapur by its Divisional Manager V/s Yallavva and
another, reported in ILR 2020 Kar 2239, wherein the
Hon’ble High Court has clearly held that, ” i) Having regard
to Section 149(1) R/w Section 149(7), whenever a case
falls under Section 149(2)(a) and the same is successfully
established or proved by the Insurance Company, as per
34 MVC No.2513/2022
the twin tests laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Swaran Singh, nevertheless, the insurer or Insurance
Company is liable to satisfy the award vis-à-vis a third
party and is entitled to recover from the insured. This is
irrespective of, the policy being an Act policy in terms of
Section 147 pertaining to compulsory coverage of risks
of third parties and other classes of persons stated
therein or a policy covering other risks by specific
contract being entered into in that regard and where
additional premium is paid by the insured i.e., a
contractual policy.
ii) The Insurer is liable to pay the third party and
recover from the insured even if there is breach of any
condition recognized under Section 149 (2), even if it is a
fundamental breach (that is breach of condition which is
the cause for the accident) and the insurer proves the
said breach in view of the mandate under Section 149(1)
of the Act. But, no such order can be passed against the
35 MVC No.2513/2022
insurer, if, on the facts and circumstances of a case, a
finding is given by the court that the third party (injured
or deceased) had played any fraud or was in collusion
with the insured, individually or collectively, for a
wrongful gain to themselves or cause wrongful loss to
the insurer.
iii) The Court can also fasten the absolute liability
on the insurer, if there is any breach of condition which
is enumerated under Section 149(2) of the Act or any
other condition of the policy if the Insurance Company
has waived breach of any such condition or has taken
the special responsibility to pay by collecting extra
premium by covering any type of risk depending upon
facts of each case.
iv) Thus, the rule of pay and recover is applicable in
view of the mandate in Section 149(4) of the Act and
even if there is a breach of the terms of the insurance
policy, the insurer is bound to satisfy the judgment and
36 MVC No.2513/2022
award as if it were a judgment debtor, even if it satisfies
the twin tests enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
under Section 149(4)(a) of the Act.
v) Before passing any order on the Insurance
Company to pay and recover, the Court has to examine
the facts and circumstances of each case and if it finds
that the victim, injured or the deceased, in a particular
case, was solely or jointly responsible for breach of such
fundamental condition by playing fraud or in collusion
with the insured, the Court may exercise its discretion
not to fasten the liability on the insurer.
vi) However, the court should not adopt the above
guideline as a general rule in all cases, but only under
peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and on
giving appropriate reasons.
vii) If the Insurance Company makes out a case
under Section 149(2)(b) of the Act, then also the
Insurance Company has to satisfy the award so far as
37 MVC No.2513/2022
Rs.9,92,968/ third party is concerned, as it is the duty of
the Insurance Company to indemnify the insured on the
basis of the policy of the insurance and even when the
contract of insurance itself is void, nevertheless the
liability to indemnify the insured would arise and insurer
is entitled to recover from the insured.
viii) Thus, in a case where Section 149(2)(b) applies
and the Insurance Company successfully establishes
that the policy is void, in such a case also, the insurer is
not absolved of its liability to satisfy the judgment or
award as rights or obligations would flow even from a
policy which is void vis-à-vis third party. In such a case,
the insurer is not completely absolved of its liability, the
insured would have to satisfy the award vis-à-vis the
third party and recover from the insured the amount
paid to the third party and may also have a right to seek
damages from the insured.
38 MVC No.2513/2022
ix) The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
in Subramanyam, holding that a pay and recovery order
cannot be made as there is no liability to pay or satisfy
the award or decree in respect of a case falling under
Section 149(2) is not correct. Hence, that portion of the
judgment in Subramanyam, which states that if the case
falls within the scope of Section 149(2) of the Act and the
insurer is successful in establishing any of the defence as
stated therein, it would be completely absolved of its
liability to satisfy the award is also not correct and to
that extent, it is held to be bad in law.”
31. In the present case, admittedly as on the date of
accident, the insurance policy issued by respondent No.3 in
respect of offending car bearing No.KA-04-MR-5890 was
valid from 07-05-2021 to 06-05-2022. But, admittedly as on
the date of accident, the driver of offending car was not
holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the said
vehicle. The oral evidence of R.W.1, who is the First Division
39 MVC No.2513/2022
Assistant of R.T.O., Bengaluru West and the document
produced by him, which is marked as Ex.R.2, clearly goes to
show that, as on the date of accident i.e. 13-02-2022, the
driver of offending car bearing No.KA-04-MR-5890 was not
holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the said
vehicle, as the licence issued in his favour was valid from 18-
05-2001 to 17-05-2021 and thereafter it is not renewed.
Hence, there is clear breach of fundamental condition of
insurance policy by the owner of offending vehicle i.e.
respondent No.1. But, there is absolutely no evidence on
record to show that, the respondent No.1/owner of
offending vehicle was having knowledge that, as on the date
of accident her deceased husband/driver of offending
vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence to
drive the said vehicle and she has consciously entrusted her
vehicle to him to drive. Further, it is pertinent to note that,
the Ex.R.6 insurance policy is issued on 06-05-2021, which is
prior to commencement of Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act,
40 MVC No.2513/2022
2019. As per provision of Sec.147(4) of Motor Vehicle Act,
1988, if the insurance policy is issued prior to
commencement of Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 2019,
the provision of this Act earlier to amendment would apply.
Under such circumstances, it can be said that, even if the
driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and
effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle, as on the
date of accident, while exonerating the insurance company
from its liability, the respondent No.3 insurance company
would be liable to pay the compensation under pay and
recovery clause, which was available prior to
commencement of Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 2019. In
such circumstances, the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for respondent No.3 does not hold good and the
ratio laid down in the above decisions relied by him are not
applicable to the case in hand, as the facts and
circumstances in those cases and the facts and
circumstances in the present case are totally different and
41 MVC No.2513/2022
there is no evidence on record to show that, the respondent
No.1/owner of offending vehicle had consciously handed
over her vehicle to a person who did not possess valid and
effective driving licence. Therefore, in the light of ratio laid
down by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, in the above
referred case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bijapur by
its Divisional Manager V/s Yallavva and another and for
the above stated reasons, this Court is of the considered
opinion that, the respondent No.3 being the insurer of the
offending vehicle is primarily liable to pay the above
compensation amount to the petitioners and later recover
the same from the owner of offending vehicle/respondent
No.1. Accordingly, holding that the petitioners are entitled
for compensation of Rs.16,09,050/-, with interest at the rate
of 6% per annum, from the date of petition till its realization
(excluding interest on future prospects amount of
Rs.1,25,550/-), from the respondent No.3, from the date of
42 MVC No.2513/2022
petition till its realization, I answer Issue No.2 in Partly
Affirmative.
32. 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 petitioners are entitled for
compensation of Rs.16,09,050/- (Rupees
sixteen lakh nine thousand and fifty
only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.,
from the date of petition till realisation
(excluding interest on future prospects
amount of Rs.1,25,550/-).
The respondent No.1 & 3 are jointly
and severally liable to pay the above
compensation amount to the
petitioners. However, the primary
liability to pay the compensation
amount is fastened on respondent No.3 –
Insurance Company and it is directed to
43 MVC No.2513/2022
pay the said amount within two months
from the date of this order and recover
the same from the respondent No.1, in
the very proceedings by filing an
execution petition.
The above compensation amount is
apportioned as follows:
Petitioner No.1 – Husband – 25%
Petitioner No.2 – Daughter – 25%
Petitioner No.3 – Son – 25%
Petitioner No.4 – Son – 25%
Out of total compensation amount
awarded in favour of petitioner, 30% of
the compensation amount with
proportionate interest shall be
deposited in the names of petitioner
No.1 to 4 as fixed deposit in any
nationalized bank for the period of two
years with liberty to draw the accrued
interest periodically and the remaining
70% amount with proportionate interest
shall be released in their favour,
44 MVC No.2513/2022
through e-payment on proper
identification and verification.
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 16 th day of June,
2025)
(Mohammed Yunus Athani)
Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners
P.W.1: Shaik Fareed S/o Late Sabjan Sab
Documents marked on behalf of petitioners
Ex.P.1: Certified copy of F.I.R.
Ex.P.2: Certified copy of First Information
Statement
Ex.P.3: Certified copy of Sketch
Ex.P.4: Certified copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.5: Certified copy of Inquest
Ex.P.6: Certified copy of Post-mortem Report
Ex.P.7: Certified copy of M.V.A. Report
Ex.P.8: Certified copy of Charge-sheet
Ex.P.9 to Notarized copy of Aadhar Cards of
13: Petitioners No.1 to 4 and deceased
45 MVC No.2513/2022
Ex.P.14: Certified copy of Death Certificate of Syeda
Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents
R.W.1: Lakshmikanth Y.D. S/o Dyamappa
R.W.2: Chaitresh D. Habbu S/o Late Divakar Habbu
Documents marked on behalf of respondents
Ex.R.1: Authorization Letter
Ex.R.2: True copy of Driving Licence Register
Extract
Ex.R.3: Certified copy of Notice issued to owner of
insured vehicle
Ex.R.4: Certified copy of Postal Acknowledgment
Ex.R.5: Certified copy of Reply Notice
Ex.R.6: True copy of Insurance Policy
(Mohammed Yunus Athani)
Member, MACT, Bengaluru.