Bangalore District Court
Mukthiyar Ahmed Alias Mukhtar vs Manjunath A.C on 1 August, 2025
1 MVC No.3489/2018
SCCH-10
KABC020151062018
Digitally signed
by
RAGHAVENDRA
RAGHAVENDRA SHETTIGAR
SHETTIGAR
Date:
2025.08.07
13:00:50 +0530
IN THE COURT OF XIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
A.C.J.M. & MEMBER- MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. (SCCH-10)
Dated: This the 1st day of August 2025
PRESENT:
SRI. RAGHAVENDRA SHETTIGAR
B.A., LL.B.
XIV ADDL. S.C.J., A.C.J.M &
MEMBER - M.A.C.T., Bengaluru.
MVC No.3489/2018
PETITIONERS:
1) Mukthiyar Ahmed @ Mukhtar,
S/o. S. Abdul Malik,
Aged about 51 years,
2) Naseema,
W/o. Mukthiyar Ahmed @ Mukhtar,
Aged about 43 years,
3) Musthak Ahamed,
S/o. Mukthiyar Ahmed @ Mukhtar,
Aged about 28 years,
4) Moin Ahmed,
S/o. Mukthiyar Ahmed @ Mukhtar,
Aged about 26 years,
2 MVC No.3489/2018
SCCH-10
5) Kumari. Musjkan Taj. M,
D/o. Mukthiyar Ahmed,
Aged about 16 years,
Since minor represented by her
father and natural guardian,
Mr. Mukthiyar Ahmed @ Mukhtar,
All are residing at No.52/4,
4th Main, 6th 'C' Cross Road,
New Gurappanapalya,
Bengaluru - 560 029.
(By Pleader Sri. M.N. )
//Versus//
RESPONDENTS:
1) Mr. Manjunath. A.C.,
S/o. Not known to the petnrs.,
No.73, 2nd Floor,
Lane Convent Road,
Kammanahalli,
Near Vincent Provision Stores,
Bengaluru - 560084.
(Previous owner).
2) Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
2nd Floor, JP and Devi Jambukeswar Arcade,
No.69, Millers Road, Bengaluru -560052.
3) Mr. Arvind. V,
S/o. Venkatesh,
Major in age,
No.144, Ground Floor, 6th Cross,
IS.TAA CRS, Vijaya Bank Colony,
Horamavu, Bengaluru.
(By Pleader Sri. N.K.M. for R1
By Pleader Sri. R.S.S. for R2
R-3 : Exparte)
3 MVC No.3489/2018
SCCH-10
:: J U D G M E N T :
:
The petition has been filed by the petitioners against
the respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,
claiming compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- for the death of
Sri. Nayeem Ahmed in a Road Traffic Accident that occurred
on 02.05.2018.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as under:
On 02.05.2018 at about 1.30 a.m., one Akmal Pasha
and deceased Nayeem Ahmed were traveling in Avenger two
wheeler bearing Reg. No.KA-51-ER-8770 near Bhale Kundri
Circle Cross, Shivajinagar Road, Bengaluru, at that time,
the driver of the Car bearing Reg. No.KA-53-A-8252 came
with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the deceased motor cycle. Due to which,
deceased fell down and sustained severe injuries and he
succumbed to fatal injuries at the spot. The petitioner No.1
is the father, the petitioner No.2 is the mother, the petitioner
No.3 and 4 are the brothers and the petitioner No.5 is the
4 MVC No.3489/2018
SCCH-10sister of the deceased and they are the dependents. Due to
sudden death of the deceased, they were put to deep mental
shock and great hardship. The respondents are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation. Hence, this petition.
3. Initially the petitioners have arrayed one Mr.
Manjunath. A.C. as respondent No.1 (owner of the offending
vehicle) and the insurance company as respondent No.2.
During trial, the petitioners have impleaded the owner of
the offending vehicle as respondent No.3. In response to the
notice, the respondent No.1 and 2 have appeared before the
Court through their respective counsel and filed their
written statement. Despite service of notice, the respondent
No.3 has not appeared before the Court, remained absent
and placed exparte.
4. The brief contentions of the respondent No.1 are
as follows:
It is contended by the respondent No.1 that, he is not
at all the owner of the offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-53-
5 MVC No.3489/2018
SCCH-10A-8252 as on the date of the accident and one Mr. Aravind. V
was the owner of the offending vehicle on the date of
accident. Hence, he is not liable to pay any compensation to
the petitioners and prays to dismiss the claim petition
against him.
5. The brief contentions of the respondent No.2 are
as under:
The respondent No.2 has contended that, the driver of
the Car bearing Reg. No. KA-53-A-8252 was not holding a
valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the
accident and the respondent No.1 has handedover the
possession of the vehicle to the said driver and hence, has
violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Further, the
respondent No.2 admitted the issuance of insurance policy
in respect of the offending car and the policy was in force as
on the date of the accident, however the liability if any
subjected to the terms and conditions of the policy. Further,
the respondent No.2 denied the age, avocation and income of
the deceased. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is
6 MVC No.3489/2018
SCCH-10highly excessive and exorbitant. Hence, prayed to dismiss
the claim petition against it.
6. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were
framed:
ISSUES
1) Whether the petitioners prove that they
are the Legal heirs of the deceased Nayeem
Ahmed ?
2) Whether the petitioners prove that,
Nayeem Ahmed was died on account of
road traffic accident took place at Queens
Road, near Balekundri Circle, Bengaluru
due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of Car bearing Reg. No.KA-53-A-
8252 dated 02.05.2018 at about 1.30 a.m. ?
3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation as prayed? If so, what is the
quantum? From whom?
4) What order or award?
7. In order to prove the case, the petitioner No.2 mother of
the deceased examined herself as PW-1 and examined an
eyewitness/ pillion rider as PW-2 and in all got marked the
documents as Ex-P-1 to Ex.P.11. On the other hand, the
respondent No.2 examined its Manager legal as RW-1 and
7 MVC No.3489/2018
SCCH-10
also examined one Mr. Suresh Raju, Police Inspector as
RW-2 and in all got marked documents as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4.
8. My finding to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per final order,
for the following:
R E A S O N S
9. ISSUE No.1:
The petitioner No.1 is the father, petitioner No.2 is the
mother, petitioner No.3 and 4 are brothers and petitioner
No.5 is the sister of the deceased. In order to prove the
relationship with the deceased, the petitioners have
produced the copies of the driving licence and Aadhaar card
of the deceased as per Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5, Aadhaar card and
Election ID card of the petitioner No.1 as per Ex.P.6 and
Ex.P.7, Election ID card and Aadhaar card of petitioner No.2
as per Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9 and Aadhaar card of petitioner
No.5 as per Ex.P.10. In the instant case, the respondents
8 MVC No.3489/2018
SCCH-10
have not much disputed the relationship of the deceased
with the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have proved
that, they are the legal heirs and dependents of the
deceased. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
10. Issue No.2:-
The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking
compensation on account of the death of Nayeem Ahmed in a
road traffic accident that took place on 02.05.2018. Ex.P.1 is
the FIR No.0015/2018 of Cubbon park Traffic PS and Ex.P.2
is the First information statement. On perusal of Ex.P.1 and
Ex.P.2 it reveal that, I.O. has registered a case against the
driver of the Car bearing Reg. No.KA-53-A-8252 for the
commission of offences punishable under Section 279, 337
and 304-A of IPC and for the offence under Section 185 of
IMV Act for driving the offending vehicle under influence of
alcohol. Ex.R.3 is the charge sheet filed by the Cubbon Park
Traffic PS against one Mr. Babajan who is none other than
the driver of the offending vehicle for the commission of
9 MVC No.3489/2018
SCCH-10offences punishable under Sec.279, 338, 304 of IPC and
Section 3(1) R/w. 181, 180 and 185 of M.V. Act. On perusal of
the aforesaid documents, it is sufficient to conclude that the
accident in question had taken place due to the actionable
negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
11. Besides, it is settled principles of law that in a motor
vehicles accident compensation cases strict proof of
negligence is not required. In this view, Court receives
support from the law declared by Hon’ble Apex Court in a
decision reported in 2009(13) SCC page 530 in the case of
Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachalapradesh Road
Transport Corporation and in AIR 2011 SC page 1504 in
the case of Parameshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others.
12. Ex.P.11 is the P.M. report wherein it reveals that, the
death of deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage as a
result of multiple injuries sustained. Thus, by considering
the present facts of the case and the materials placed on
record, I am of the opinion that, the accident in question had
10 MVC No.3489/2018
SCCH-10
occurred due to the negligent and rash driving of the driver
of the Car bearing Reg. No.KA-53-A-8252 and the deceased
Nayeem Ahmed succumbed to the injuries in the accident.
Hence, Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
13. ISSUE No.3:
The specific contention of the petitioners that,
deceased Nayeem Ahmed was hale and healthy at the time
of accident, aged about 23 years and was a proprietor of
Limra Office Comforts and two wheeler mechanic service
center and earning Rs.50,000/- per month and due to
untimely death of deceased they were put to great hardship
and lost their bread earner of the family.
14. Further, to prove the occupation and income of the
deceased, the petitioners have not produced any documents.
Therefore, notional income has to be taken for consideration.
15. At this juncture, I would like to refer the decision
reported in 2023(4) KCCR 3603 (DB) between
11 MVC No.3489/2018
SCCH-10
Aneesahemmed Vs Mohammed Yusuf and Another. In
the above decision the Hon’ble High Court has taken into
consideration the notional income as fixed by the Karnataka
State Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru (KSLSA in
short). The KSLSA, Bengaluru as per letter dated
26.02.2022 – 01/NLA/2022/550/2022 has circulated the
notional income chart prepared by them. As per the said
notional income chart, if the accident occurred in the year
2018 the notional income has to be taken as Rs.12,500/- per
month. Therefore, in view of the decision of the H circulated
the notional income chart prepared by them. As per the said
notional income chart, if the accident occurred in the year
2018 the notional income has to be taken as Hon’ble High
Court and the letter of KSLSA and also in the absence of
proof of income, this Court is of the opinion that, if the
notional income is taken into consideration for assessing the
income of the deceased would be just and proper. The
12 MVC No.3489/2018
SCCH-10
accident was occurred on 02.05.2018. Therefore, this Court
has taken Rs.12,500/- as monthly income of the deceased.
16. Before proceeding to award compensation under the
different heads, I feel it necessary to reproduce the law
declared by Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No.25590/2014 in between National
Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.
Hon’ble Apex Court in para No.61 has proceeded to record
the following conclusions;
(iv) In case the deceased was self-
employed or on 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 necessary method of
computation. The established income
means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the
multiplicand, the deduction for personal
and living expenses, the tribunals and the
courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to
13 MVC No.3489/2018
SCCH-10
32 of Sarla Verma which we have
reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall
be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma
read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be
the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on
conventional head, namely, loss of estate,
loss of consortium and funeral expenses
should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and
Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid
amounts should be enhanced at the rate of
10% in every three years.
17. To prove the age of the deceased, the petitioners have
produced Driving Licence as per Ex.P4, wherein the date of
birth of the deceased is mentioned as 29.10.1994. The
accident was occurred on 02.05.2018. Therefore, at the time
of accident, the deceased was aged about 24 years. As per
the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and
Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. and Anr reported in
(2009) 6 SCC 121 an operative multiplier of 18 is
applicable for the age group of 15 to 25 years.
14 MVC No.3489/2018
SCCH-10
18. In the instant case, the deceased who was the bachelor
has left behind the parents (Petitioner No.1 and 2), elder
brothers (Petitioner No.3 and 4) and younger sister
(Petitioner No.5) and they are dependents of the deceased.
In Sarla Verma case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
expressed the view regarding standardized deduction
towards personal and living expenses. Where the number of
dependents are 4 to 6, the deduction would be 1/ 4th. As
discussed supra, in the present case, petitioner No.1 (father),
petitioner No.2 (mother), petitioner No.3 and 4 (Elder
brothers) and petitioner No.5 (younger sister) of the
deceased are the dependents. Hence, in the present case,
1/4th of the income of the deceased has to be deducted
towards personal and living expenses. As discussed supra,
in the present case, the Court has taken the view that the
deceased was having monthly income of Rs.12,500/- (by
relying on KSLSA notional income chart) and annual income
would be Rs.1,50,000/-. If 1/4th of Rs.1,50,000/- is deducted
15 MVC No.3489/2018
SCCH-10
towards personal expenses, the contribution to the family
(dependents) is determined as Rs.1,12,500/-.
19. As per Pranay Sethi case, if the deceased was self-
employed, an addition of 40% of the established income
should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age
of 40 years. In the present case, the deceased was aged 24
years at the time of accident and was self-employed. Hence,
an addition of 40% shall be added to Rs.1,12,500/-. If an
addition of 40% is added same will be Rs.1,12,500/- + 40%
(45,000/-) = Rs.1,57,500/-. The multiplier will be 18 having
regard to the age of the deceased at the time of death (24
years). Therefore, the total loss of dependency would be
Rs.1,57,500/- X 18 = Rs.28,35,000/-. Thus, Rs.28,35,000/- is
the compensation under the head of loss of dependency.
20. As per Pranay Sethi Case, reasonable figures on
conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium
and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and
Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be
16 MVC No.3489/2018
SCCH-10
enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years from the
date of judgment (31.10.2017). Therefore, in the instant
case, the petitioners are entitled for the aforesaid
conventional heads with enhanced rate of 20%.
21. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Nanu
Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Ors., (Civil Appeal
No.9581/2018), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that
the parents are also entitled loss of consortium under the
head of parental consortium;
22. As discussed above, since Loss of estate, Loss of
Consortium and Funeral expenses have been fixed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi Case, the petitioners
are entitled to receive Rs.18,000/-, Rs.48,000/- and
Rs.18,000/- respectively for loss of Estate, parental
consortium and funeral expenses.
23. From the above discussions the petitioners are entitled
for compensation under the following heads;
17 MVC No.3489/2018 SCCH-10 Sl. No. Heads Compensation 1) Loss of dependency Rs. 28,35,000/- 2) Loss of consortium to Rs. 96,000/- petitioner No.1 & 2 (Rs.48,000/- x 2) 3) Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000/- 4) Loss of Estate Rs. 18,000/- Total: Rs.29,67,000/- 24. REGARDING LIABILITY :
As discussed supra, this Court has arrived at the
conclusion that, the accident had occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the Car bearing Reg.
No.KA-53-A-8252. In this case, the respondent No.1 is the
previous owner, the respondent No.2 is the insurer and the
respondent No.3 is the owner of the offending vehicle as on
the date of accident. The respondent No.3 has insured the
vehicle with respondent No.2, as such, respondent No.2 has
to indemnify the respondent No.3. Admittedly, the Insurance
Policy was in force at the time of the accident.
18 MVC No.3489/2018
SCCH-10
25. The respondent No.2 / insurance company has
specifically contended that, the driver of the offending
vehicle was in an intoxicated condition and on the date of
accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess
valid driving licence and thereby the owner of the vehicle
has violated the policy condition and hence, insurance
company is not liable to pay the compensation.
26. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has
turned my attention towards the charge sheet which is
marked as Ex.R.3. On perusal of Ex.R.3 it reveals that, the
I.O. has invoked Sec.279, 338 and 304-A of IPC R/w Sec.3(1),
180, 181 and 185 of M.V. Act alleging that the driver of the
offending vehicle drove the vehicle under the influence of
alcohol in a rash and negligent manner and the driver was
not possessing valid driving licence on the date of accident.
On perusal of the charge sheet and the FSL report (Ex.R.4),
it appear that the driver was under the influence of alcohol
at the time of accident. Further, it also reveals that the
19 MVC No.3489/2018
SCCH-10
driver was not possessing valid driving licence on the date of
accident. Therefore, this Court is the opinion that, the owner
of the vehicle has committed fundamental breach of policy
condition. Therefore, the respondent No.3 being the owner of
the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation to the
petitioners.
27. The counsel for the petitioners has argued that, the
petitioners are third party victims and though there is
violation of policy condition if any, the insurance company
has to satisfy the award amount and can recover the same
from the owner.
28. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon
the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh
reported in 2014 SCC online AP 232 (Deputy Manager
(Legal) Vs Manju Devi and Others). It is held that, ‘even
if there is a condition in the policy certificate that
driving of a vehicle in an intoxicated condition is
violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, still
20 MVC No.3489/2018
SCCH-10
the insurance company is liable for payment of
compensation’.
29. Further, by referring to the aforesaid judgment, the
Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in 2023 Livelaw (Ker) 52
(Muhammed Rashid @ Rashid Vs Girivasan. E.K.) held
that, ‘second respondent insurance company is liable to
pay the compensation to the claimants and the
insurance company shall deposit the award amount
before the Tribunal and thereafter recover the same
from the first respondent in the manner known to law’.
30. It has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in New India Assurance Co., Ltd., v/s
Yallavva W/o Yamanappa Dharnakeri in M.F.A. No.
30131 of 2010 (MV-I) dated 12 May, 2020 that,
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
21 MVC No.3489/2018
SCCH-10
accident) and the insurer proves the said
breach in view of the mandate under
Section 149(1) of the Act.”
31. In the instant case, though there is a violation of policy
condition, the respondent No.2 has admitted the issuance of
policy to the offending vehicle and same was in force on the
date of accident. The Hon’ble Apex Court in New India
Assurance Co. Vs Kamala and others [(2001) 4 SCC
342] held that, ‘when a valid insurance policy has been
issued in respect of a vehicle as evidenced by a
certificate of insurance, the burden is on the insurer to
pay the third parties, whether or not there has been
any breach or violation of the policy conditions. But
the amount so paid by the insurer to third parties can
be allowed to be recovered from the insured, if as per
the policy conditions the insurer had no liability to
pay such sum to the insured.’
22 MVC No.3489/2018
SCCH-10
32. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Nanjappan [(2004) 13 SCC 224]
held that, ‘when there is a violation to the terms and
conditions of the policy, insurance company is held to
be not liable, but insurance company has to pay the
awarded compensation and recover the same from the
insured by initiating the proceedings before the
Executing Court to protect and safeguard the interests
of insurance company’.
Therefore, in view of the valid insurance policy and
indemnity between the respondents insured and insurer and
in view of the above legal principles, at the first instance, the
insurer i.e. respondent No.2 has to pay the award amount of
Rs.29,67,000/- to the petitioners with interest @ 6% p.a.
from the date of petition till the date of deposit, then same
has to be recovered from the respondent No.3 (Arvind. V) /
owner of the offending vehicle in accordance with law.
23 MVC No.3489/2018
SCCH-10
33. The petitioner No.1 (father), petitioner No.2 (mother),
petitioner No.3 and 4 (brothers) and the petitioner No.5
(sister of the deceased) are entitled for compensation in the
ratio of 25:30:15:15:15 respectively. Since the respondent
No.1 was not the owner of the offending vehicle on the date
of accident, the petition against respondent No.1 is liable to
be dismissed. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 Partly in
the Affirmative.
34. Issue No.4:
In view of my findings on Issue No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioners under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is
partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for total
compensation of Rs.29,67,000/- with simple
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of
24 MVC No.3489/2018
SCCH-10petition till realization of entire compensation
awarded.
The petitioner No.1 to 5 are entitled to receive
compensation in the ratio of 25:30:15:15:15
respectively from the respondent No.2.
The respondent No.2 being insurer is directed
to deposit the entire compensation amount with
interest within 30 days as contemplated under
Sec.168(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The petition against respondent No.1 is hereby
dismissed.
The respondent No.2 / insurance company is at
liberty to recover the compensation amount from
the owner/ respondent No.3 in accordance with
law.
Out of the award amount, 40% of the award
amount of petitioner No.1 and 2 shall be invested
in fixed deposit for a period of 3 years in any
nationalized bank of petitioners choice and
balance amount shall be released to petitioner
No.1 and 2 through NEFT/RTGS by way of E-
payment on proper identification.
25 MVC No.3489/2018
SCCH-10
Entire amount awarded to petitioner No.3 to 5
shall be released through NEFT/RTGS by way of
E-payment on proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. .
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by
her corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on
this 1st day of August 2025).
(RAGHAVENDRA SHETTIGAR)
XIV ADDL.S.C.J., ACJM &
MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURES
List of witnesses examined on petitioners’ side:
P.W.1 Smt. Nasim. P.W.2 Mr. Akmal Pasha
List of documents exhibited on petitioner’s side:
Ex-P1 Certified copy of FIR
Ex-P2 Certified copy of Complaint
Ex-P3 Certified copy of Inquest panchanama
Ex-P4 True copy of Driving licence
Ex-P5 True copy of Aadhaar card of deceased
Ex-P6 True copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner No.1
Ex-P7 True copies of Voter ID card petitioner No.1
Ex-P8&9 True copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner No.2
Ex-P10 True copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner No.3
Ex-P11 True copy of Postmortem report
26 MVC No.3489/2018
SCCH-10
List of witnesses examined on respondents side:-
R.W.1 Mr. Shreyas Bhat R.W.2 Mr. J. Suresh Raju
List of documents exhibited on respondents side:
Ex-R1 Authorization letter
Ex-R2 Policy copy along with terms and
conditions
Ex-R3 Charge Sheet
Ex-R4 FSL report
XIV ADDL.S.C.J., ACJM &
MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU.