Bangalore District Court
Venkateshappa vs Rangaiah H.B on 2 August, 2025
KABC020091702023
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU. (SCCH-_25)
-: PRESENT:-
PRESENT: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA. R,
B.A.L, LL.B.,
XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2025
MVC No.2012/2023
Petitioner/s Sri. Venkateshappa
Since dead by his Lrs
1(a) Smt. Munivenkatamma
W/o Late Venkateshappa,
Aged about 60 years,
1(b) Smt. Neelamma
W/o Chennappa,
D/o Late Venkateshappa,
Aged about 47 years,
R/at No.25, GNR Garden,
Babusapalya, Kalyananagar,
Bangalore - 560 043.
1(c) Smt. Manjula
D/o Late Venkateshappa,
Aged about 45 years,
2 MVC No.2012/2023
SCCH-25
1(d) Sri. Kodandarama
S/o Late Venkateshappa,
Aged about 43 years,
1(e) Smt. Mamatha
W/o Gopalappa,
D/o Late Venkateshappa,
Aged about 41 years,
1(f) Smt. Roopa
D/o Late Venkateshappa,
Aged about 39 years,
1(g) Sri. Shivanna V.
S/o Late Venkateshappa,
Aged about 37 years,
1(h) Sri. Ganesh
S/o Late Venkateshappa,
Aged about 34 years,
Lrs of petitioners are
R/at 1(a) and 1(c) to (h)
Sheegehalli Village,
Yeldur Hobli,
Srinivasapur Taluk,
Kolar District - 563 138.
1(i) Smt. Arathi
W/o Suresh,
D/o Late Venkateshappa,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at 19K No.186,
Chelekere, Kalyananagara,
Bangalore - 560 043.
(Sri. N.Lokanath Singh,
Advocate/s)
3 MVC No.2012/2023
SCCH-25
Vs.
Respondent/s 1. Sri. H.B.Rangaiah
S/o Late Beemanna,
Hindu, Major,
R/of Kalidasa Nagara,
Sira Town,
HP to Town Co Op Bank Sira
Tumakuru - 572 137.
(By Sri.M.Rakesh, Advocate.)
2. United India Ins. Co. Ltd.,
Jayadeva Complex,
B.H.Road,
Tumkur - 572 101.
(Policy No.0714003122P107595998
Valid from 03.11.2022 to
02.11.2023)
Head office at:
The Branch Manager
United India Ins. Co. Ltd.,
T.P.Hub, Krishi Bhavana,
VI Floor, Hudson Circle,
Bangalore - 560 002.
(By Sri. K.R.Shivananda, Advocate.)
JUDGMENT
This judgment arise out of claim petition filed
by the claimant against respondents under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred as “Act”) praying for
4 MVC No.2012/2023
SCCH-25
awarding compensation of Rs.50,50,000/- for the
injuries sustained by him in a road traffic
accident that occurred on 18.12.2022 at about
12.30pm.
However, during the trial the petitioner
passed away the Lrs have brought on record.
2. The case of the claimants in nutshell is
that:
On 18.12.2022 at about 12.30pm, the
petitioner was riding motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-
43-H-6611 towards his house via Srinivasapura-
Mulabagal Road and on reaching near HP Petrol
Bunk, a Mini Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-D-8640
came with high speed, in a rash and negligent
manner, driven by its driver from Mulubagulu side,
endangering human life and dashed against the
petitioner. On account of the tremendous impact of
the said accident, the petitioner fell down and
sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the
accident petitioner was shifted to Srinivasapura Govt.
Hospital for immediate treatment and then shifted to
SNR District Hospital, Kolar and thereafter shifted to
Manipal Hospital and admitted from 18.12.2022 to
07.01.2023 and again to Victoria Hospital from
07.01.2023 to 14.01.2023 and to Rmaiah Memorial
5 MVC No.2012/2023
SCCH-25Hospital from 15.01.2023 to 20.01.2023 and is still
continuing follow up treatment. So far he has spent
Rs.30,50,000/- towards treatment, conveyance,
nourishment and attendant charges.
3. It is the further case of the petitioners
that, prior to the date of accident petitioner was hale
and healthy, doing Agriculture Work and earning
salary of Rs.1,000/- Per day. Due to the injuries
petitioner developed considerable restrictions in his
body movement out of the accident injuries. That is
the normal life of the petitioner has been hampered
and leading crippled life in his entire future under
dependency. The petitioner is put to total loss in his
earnings and also subjected to intolerable pains by
heading him to major extent of disablement.
4. The accident was caused entirely due to
the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the
Mini Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-D-8640. The
respondent No.1 being the RC owner and the
respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending
Mini Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-D-8640 are jointly
and severally liable to pay compensation to the
petitioners.
6 MVC No.2012/2023
SCCH-25
5. The accident in question was taken place
due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the
Mini Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-D-8640. The
Srinivasapura Police have registered a case against
the driver of the offending Mini Bus in
Cr.No.0299/2023. For the aforesaid reasons, the
claimants/Lrs have prayed for awarding total
compensation of Rs.50,50,000/- under various
heads.
6. In pursuance of the notices, the
respondents appeared through their respective
counsels but the respondent No.2 alone filed written
statement.
6A. The respondent No.2 has filed the written
statement denying the entire petition averments and
also denied the issuance of policy in respect of the
Mini Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-D-8640 vide its
policy No.0714003122P107595998. There is non
compliance of Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act. It has
denied the involvement of the vehicle in the accident.
The petitioner was lodged belated complaint before
the jurisdictional policy by wrongly implicating the
alleged vehicle in the alleged accident and colluded
with the police and caused the charge sheet against
7 MVC No.2012/2023
SCCH-25
the driver. Further contended that the driver of the
offending vehicle did not possess a valid DL as on the
date of accident. It has denied the rashness driving
by the driver of the offending vehicle. Further stated
that there is no nexus between the accidental injuries
and death of Sri.Venkateshappa. It has denied the
death of the deceased due to injuries sustained in the
alleged accident. It has also denied the manner of
accident. Further contended that the Lrs of the
petitioner are not entitled any compensation under
the head of loss of dependency. It has denied the age,
avocation, income, medical expenses etc., Further
contended that the compensation claimed by the
petitioners is highly excessive, exorbitant. Hence, the
respondent No.2 prayed to dismiss the petition with
costs.
7. Basing on the pleadings of the parties,
the following issues are framed for determination.
1. Whether the petitioner proves
that, the accident occurred on
18.12.2022 at 12.30pm, due to rash
and negligent driving by the driver
of the Mini Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-
06-D-8640 and in the said accident
petitioner sustained injuries?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled
8 MVC No.2012/2023
SCCH-25
for compensation? If so, what is the
quantum? From whom?
3. What order or Award?
8. During the pendency of this petition the
petitioner died hence his Legal representatives were
brought on record as 1(a) to 1(i) vide orders dated
31.08.2024. In order to prove the case, the
petitioners have got examined Petitioner 1(g) as PW.1
and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.13. On the other side
the respondents did not examine any witness nor
produced any documents on their behalf.
9. Heard arguments of both sides and
perused the materials on record.
The counsel for the petitioners have relied
upon the following decisions:
1. 2019 ACJ 42 : Saraswati Palariya and Ors. Vs.
New India Ass. Co. Ltd., and Ors.
2. MFA No.104098/2017 : The Divisional Manager,
Shriram Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Sri. Yunus @
Yunusahamad @ Mohammadyunus and Anr.
The counsel for the Respondent No.2 has relied
upon the following decisions:
9 MVC No.2012/2023
SCCH-25
1. MFA No.3691/2011 (MV) : M/s Oriental Ins. Co.
Ltd., Vs. Sri.A.Nagaraj and Ors.
2. ILR 2004 KAR 3268 : A. Manavalagan Vs. A.
Krishnamurthy and Ors.
3. SLP (CIVIL) No(s).22265-66/2018 : Deep Shikha
and Anr. Vs. National Ins. Co. Ltd., and Ors.
10. My findings to the above issues are as
follows:-
Issue No.1: In the affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the affirmative,
Issue No.3: As per final order for the Following:-
REASONS
11. Issue No.1:-
During the pendency of the petition the
deceased petitioner died on 03.04.2023 and his Lrs
have come on record. Therefore, the claimants are
required to establish that due to actionable
negligence on the part of the offending vehicle the
deceased petitioner had sustained grievous injuries
and there is also nexus between the death and the
injures suffered by the deceased in the accident.
10 MVC No.2012/2023
SCCH-25
12. In order to prove that the petitioner has
succumbed due to injuries suffered in the accident,
the Lrs of petitioners have produced the postmortem
examination and inquest mahazar, further
complaint, charge sheet and other medical records
pertaining to the deceased to support their claim. As
per these documents, the accident occurred on
18.12.2022, whereas the deceased died on
03.04.2023 i.e., almost after the lapse of Three
months 16 days from the date of accident.
Ex.P.3/discharge summaries of Manipal Hospital,
Victoria Hospital and Ramaiah Hosptial, Bangalore,
clearly shows that the petitioner was admitted to the
above said hospitals and treated from 18.12.2022 to
07.01.2023, 07.01.2023 to 14.01.2023 and from
15.01.2023 to 20.01.2023 with alleged history of RTA
on 18.12.2022 at around 1.00p.m. and diagnosed
with Multiple Haemorrhagic contusions/SAH and
right rib fracture underwent surgical/therapeutic
procedures intubation, S/P percutaneous
Tracheostomy and arterial line. He was also
diagnosed with RTA with Traumatic brain injury –
Multiple Hemorrhagic Contusions/SAH, Second and
Fourth RIB Fracture Rigth with right lung contusion,
Parietal and Zygomatic Bone fracure right, S/P
Tracheostomy, AKI VS Acute on CKD, Type 2
11 MVC No.2012/2023
SCCH-25
Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension, Grade II Bedsore,
Duodenl Ulcer and treated/underwent with RT
Insertion under USG guidance on 16.01.2023 and
medical management. The postmortem report has
also reflects the injuries as referred in the discharge
summary or medical documents. So, I have no
hesitate to hold that the death of the petitioner is
due to the injuries sustained in the alleged accident.
13. As I referred above, In order to
substantiate the claim petition contention, the
petitioner No.1(g) has examined himself as PW-1 and
got marked total Thirteen documents as Exs.P1 to 13
and closed their side evidence. The respondent No.2
has denied the involvement of the offending vehicle
in the accident and also denied the death of the
petitioner stating that there is no nexus between the
death and the injuries. To prove the same the
respondents did not examine any witness nor
produced any documents on their behalf. The details
of the exhibits are given in the annexure of the
judgment.
14. The PW.1 has reiterated the petition
averments in the chief examination. He deposed that
he was not an eyewitness to the alleged accident. He
12 MVC No.2012/2023
SCCH-25
gave complaint to the police on the basis of the
information given by the eyewitness. He further
denied other suggestions made by the learned
counsel for the parties.
15. To prove the relationship of the
petitioners with the deceased, they have produced
notarized copy of Aadhar Cards and family Ration
Card as per Exs.P11 and 13. Ex.P.7 Inquest mahazar
also shows the names and relationship of the
petitioners with the deceased.
16. The petitioners have totally relied on the
police documents to substantiate their claim and
also rash and negligent act of the Mini Bus bearing
Reg.No.KA-06-D-8640. The IMV report shows that
the offending vehicle got damaged to its front right
side corner of the body dent and the
petitioner/deceased motorcycle got damaged to its
head light and right side indicator and right side rear
view mirror damaged. As per the police documents
itself depicts that the accident occurred at about
12.30pm, normally traffic was has not so high, if the
driver of the offending vehicle had taken minimal
care, the accident would have been postponed or not
occurred.
13 MVC No.2012/2023
SCCH-25
The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has held
in the case 1
The Divisional Manager, Shriram
General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Yunus @
Yunusahamad and another that;
” 14. Firstly, those who have witnessed
the accident might not be interested in
setting of the criminal law in motion.
15. Secondly, even if the some persons
were persons were come to rescue the
injured they may refrain to intimate the
police based on their past experience with
the investigation agency or general
impression they carry about the police.
16. Under such circumstances, expecting
an eye witnesses to be present in each and
every case, is far from reality.”
The police documents and other materials are
clearly discloses that the driver of the Mini Bus has
dashed his vehicle to the deceased on the front right
side. Further more, the investigating officer had led
the charge sheet after thorough investigation.
\
17. It is undisputed fact that the there was a
delay in lodging the case. The First information
report indicates that, the informant had not lodged
1
MFA No.104098-2017 dated 05-02-2024.
14 MVC No.2012/2023
SCCH-25
the complaint in time as he was busy in taking care
of the injured person in the hospital. At this
juncture, it is beneficial to refer the Judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RAVI V/s.
BADRINARAYAN AND OTHERS. The Hon’ble Apex
Court has observed that
“in accident cases, human nature and family
responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and
kin to such an extent that they give more
importance to get the victim treated rather
than to rush to the Police Station. Under
such circumstances, they are not expected
to act mechanically with promptitude in
lodging the FIR with the Police. Delay in
lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground
to deny justice to the victim. In cases of
delay, the Courts are required to examine
the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in
doing so; the contents of the FIR should also
be scrutinized more carefully. If court finds
that there is no indication of fabrication or it
has not been concocted or engineered to
implicate innocent persons then, even if
there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim
cannot be dismissed merely on that ground
although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding
motor accident claim cases. Delay in lodging
15 MVC No.2012/2023
SCCH-25
the claim should not be treated as fatal for
such proceedings, if claimant has been able
to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent
reasons for it. There could be variety of
reasons in genuine cases for delayed
lodgment of FIR. In such cases, the
authenticity of the FIR assumes much more
significance than delay in lodging thereof.”
18. In the light of the Judgment referred to
supra in RAVI’s case, it is manifestly clear delay in
lodging the FIR cannot be the ground to deny justice
to the victim. However, the claim has to be examined
with a closer scrutiny, particularly the contents of
the FIR. The First Information report indicates that,
the informant had not lodged the complaint as he
was busy in taking care of the injured person in the
hospital. So, the informant has shown the reason for
lodging the complaint with delay. Same has been
highlighted in the relevant column of FIR. So, the
reasons assigned by the informant is satisfactory and
cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of
reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of
FIR. In such cases, the authenticity of the FIR
assumes much more significance than delay in
lodging thereof. It is well settled position of law that
16 MVC No.2012/2023
SCCH-25
the proceedings under Motor Vehicle Act are
summary in nature and it is beneficial legislation
and the evidence required about negligence act is
sufficient if it is in the nature of preponderance of
probability.
19. The contention of the insurance company
that the driver of the offending Vehicle was not
having valid driving license at the time of accident.
The police have not led charge sheet for offense
punishable under section 3 R/w 181 of Motor
Vehicles Act and further the insurer had not placed
any iota of evidence in this regard. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held in a decision 22018 (5) SCC
656 held
“24. It will be useful to advert to the dictum
in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal
[N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal,
(1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 774] ,
wherein it was contended by the vehicle
owner that the criminal case in relation to
the accident had ended in acquittal and for
which reason the claim under the Motor
Vehicles Act ought to be rejected. This Court
negatived the said argument by observing
that the nature of proof required to establish
2
Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
17 MVC No.2012/2023
SCCH-25
culpable rashness, punishable under IPC, is
more stringent than negligence sufficient
under the law of tort to create liability. The
observation made in para 3 of the jud 80
gment would throw some light as to what
should be the approach of the Tribunal in
motor accident cases. The same reads thus :
“3. Road accidents are one of the top killers
in our country, specially when truck and bus
drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial
recklessness often persuades the courts, as
has been observed by us earlier in other
cases, to draw an initial presumption in
several cases based on the doctrine of res
ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take
special care to see that innocent victims do
not suffer and drivers and owners do not
escape liability merely because of some doubt
here or some obscurity there. Save in plain
cases, culpability must be inferred from the
circumstances where it is fairly reasonable.
The court should not succumb to niceties,
technicalities and mystic maybes. We are
emphasising this aspect because we are often
distressed by transport operators getting
away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite
the fact that they do not exercise sufficient
disciplinary control over the drivers in the
18 MVC No.2012/2023
SCCH-25matter of careful driving. The heavy
economic impact of culpable driving of public
transport must bring owner and driver to
their responsibility to their neighbor. Indeed,
the State must seriously consider no-fault
liability by legislation. A second aspect which
pains us is the inadequacy of the
compensation or undue parsimony practiced
by tribunals. We must remember that judicial
tribunals are State organs and Article 41 of
the Constitution lays the jurisprudential
foundation for State relief against accidental
disablement of citizens. There is no
justification for niggardliness in
compensation. A third factor which is
harrowing is the enormous delay in disposal
of accident cases resulting in compensation,
even if awarded, being postponed by several
years. The States must appoint sufficient
number of tribunals and the High Courts
should insist upon quick disposals so that
the trauma and tragedy already sustained
may not be magnified by the injustice of
delayed justice. Many States are unjustly
indifferent in this regard.”
25. In Dulcina Fernandes [Dulcina
Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10
SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1
19 MVC No.2012/2023
SCCH-25
SCC (Cri) 13] , this Court examined similar
situation where the evidence of claimant’s
eyewitness was discarded by the Tribunal and
that the respondent in that case was
acquitted in the criminal case concerning the
accident. This Court, however, opined that it
cannot be overlooked that upon investigation
of the case registered against the respondent,
prima facie, materials showing negligence
were found to put him on trial. The Court
restated the settled principle that the
evidence of the claimants ought to be
examined by the Tribunal on the touchstone
of preponderance of probability and certainly
the standard of proof beyond reasonable
doubt could not have been applied”
20. The Court cannot adopt strict liability as
conducted in a criminal case to prove rash and
negligence on the part of the driver of the respondent
vehicle. But there should be prima-facie materials
regarding rash and negligence to fix the owner and
insurance company for payment of compensation.
Therefore, a straight jacket formula cannot be
adopted in accepting the rash and negligence on the
part of driver of the insured. So, the materials on
record clearly indicates that the accident has
20 MVC No.2012/2023
SCCH-25occurred due to sole negligence of driver of the
offending vehicle. Hence, I answer issue No.1 in the
affirmative.
21. Issue No.2:
The Petitioner 1(a) to 1(i) are being wife,
daughters and sons/children of the deceased. It is
the contention of the petitioners that the deceased
was doing Agriculture work and earning of
Rs.1,000/- Per day. The petitioner 1(g) has reiterated
the same in the chief examination affidavit. In this
regard petitioners have produced RTCs as per
Ex.P.12. The records of rights extract produced by
the petitioners are clearly discloses that the Mango
plants have planted. It is seasonal fruit. As per the
claim petition the age of the deceased was 58 years.
The Aadhar Card of the deceased discloses that the
deceased age was 83 years. The medical documents
are also clearly demonstrated that the age of the
deceased was more than eighty years. In the absence
of the relevant documents and attending
circumstances it can be safe to hold that the
deceased age was 80 years at the time of alleged
accident. As I mentioned above, the petitioners have
not placed any material worth to show the exact
income of the deceased. So, considering the nature
21 MVC No.2012/2023
SCCH-25of work, the chart prepared, furnished by the Hon’ble
Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, Bengaluru
is taken in to consideration, the notional income of
Rs.15,500/-pm is calculated to award loss of
earning, it would meets the ends of justice. In the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2017) 16
SCC 680 in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi and others, the
deceased aged about 80 years so there is no future
prospects is to be added to his monthly income.
During the cross examination of PW.1, he has
admitted that all the daughters are married and
residing in their husband and all the sons are also
married except himself and one Mamatha Lr.1(e) are
residing together, but there is no proof for the same.
Considering his statement and their age, all are
major children and they are all earning their own
and they are not depending on the income of the
deceased. Therefore, this Tribunal deems that Lr.1(a)
wife of the deceased will be considered as the
dependent of the deceased. As per Sarala Verma’s
Case, if there is sole/single dependent, ½ income of
the deceased has to be deducted towards his
personal and living expenses. As such Rs.7,750/-
(Rs.15,500/- – Rs.7,750/- = Rs.7,750/-) is to be
considered monthly income of the deceased. As per
22 MVC No.2012/2023
SCCH-25Sarala Varma‘s case the multiplier applicable to the
case on hand is 5. If the The loss of dependency
is calculated as below. Rs.7,750/- (monthly income)
x 12 x 5 (multiplier) =Rs.4,65,000/-. This is just and
proper compensation under the head of loss of
dependency.
LOSS OF ESTATE
22. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in Pranay Sethi case in case of death
in the maximum the Court can award Rs.18,000/-
in lump sum under the head of loss of estate.
FUNERAL EXPENSES
23. In view of the Pranay Sethi’s
case this tribunal has no option but to award
Rs.18,000/- under this head. Except these heads
the claimants are not entitled for any compensation.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed
in a judgment reported in 3(2018) 18 SCC 130 has
held in paragraph No.21 that
“A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi
(Supra) dealt with the various heads under
3
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru
Ram
23 MVC No.2012/2023
SCCH-25
which the compensation is to be awarded in a
death case. One of these heads is Loss of
Consortium. In legal parlance Consortium is a
compendious term which encompasses Spousal
Consortium; Parental consortium and filial
consortium. The right to consortium would
include the company, care, help, comfort,
guidance, solace and affection of the deceased,
which is a loss to his family. With respect to a
spouse, it would include sexual relations with
the deceased spouse.”
21 1 “Spousal Consortium is generally
defined as rights pertaining to the relationship
of a husband wife which allows compensation
to the surviving spouse for loss of Company,
Society, co operation, affection and aid of the
other in every conjugal relation”
21 2 ” Parental Consortium is granted to the
child upon the premature death of a parent, for
loss of parental aid, protection, affection,
society, discipline, guidance and
training.”13,50,180
21 3 ” Filial Consortium is the right of the
parents to compensation in the case of an
accidental death of the Child. An accident
leading to the death of a child causes great
shock, agony to the parents and family of the
deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to
lose their child during their lifetime. Children
are valued for their love, affection,
companionship and their role in the family
unit.”
22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting
changing norms about the status and worth of
actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world
over have recognized that the value of a Child’s
24 MVC No.2012/2023
SCCH-25
consortium far exceeds the economic value of
the compensation awarded in the case of the
death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore,
permit parents to be awarded compensation
under loss of consortium on the death of a
child. The amount awarded to the parents is a
compensation for loss of the love, affection,
care and companionship of the deceased child”.
25. The claimants 1(a) to 1(i) being the Wife
and children of the deceased are entitled for ‘Spousal
Consortium’ and ‘Parental Consortium’ respectively.
Hence a sum of Rs.3,96,000/- (Rs.44,000/- each) is
awarded under this head.
Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization,
medicines, transportation, nourishing food and
misc. expenditures.
26. The Petitioners have contended that they
have spent Rs.30,50,000/- towards hospitalization
and treatment of the deceased petitioner. In this
regard they have produced medical bills as per
Ex.P.10 for a sum of Rs.21,13,561/-. Out of these
bills, Bills Sl.Nos.5, 25 & 26 paid by the “Bharath
Electronics Limited” for Rs.19,02,936/-. If deduct
Rs.19,02,936/- from total amount of Rs.21,13,561/-
then it comes to Rs.2,10,625/-. As such, the
petitioner No.1a is entitled for the said amount under
this head of treatment and medical expenses.
25 MVC No.2012/2023
SCCH-25
27. It is undisputed fact that the deceased
has taken considerable treatment in the above
referred hospitals for considering period. Hence,
Rs.50,000/- is awarded under the head of
attendant, food and nourishment charges.
28. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for
compensation under the following heads.
Sl. Name of the Head Awarded
No. Compensation
01. Loss of dependency Rs.4,65,000/-
02. Towards loss of estate Rs.18,000/-
03. Towards Funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
04. Loss of Consortium Rs.3,96,000/-
05. Medical Expenses Rs.2,10,625/-
06. Attendant, Food & Rs.50,000/-
Nourishment charges
TOTAL Rs.11,57,625/-
29. The next question is the liability to pay
the said compensation. As the respondents failed to
prove their defense. The petitioner proved that as on
the date of accident the policy was in force.
Therefore, Respondent No.2 has to indemnify the
respondent No.1 and liable to pay compensation to
26 MVC No.2012/2023
SCCH-25
the petitioner with interest @ 6% P.A. Hence, I
answer issue No.2 partly in affirmative.
30. Issue No.3: As per following:
ORDER
The claim petition filed by
claimants under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is allowed
in part.
The petitioner No.1a is entitled
for compensation of Rs.11,57,625/-
(Rupees Eleven Lakhs Fifty Seven
Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Five
only) with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till
realization.
The Petitioner No.1(b) to 1(i) are
entitled for compensation of
Rs.3,52,000/- (Rs.44,000/- x 8) under
the head of Loss of Consortium with
interest at 6% per annum from the
date of petition till realization..
The respondent No.2 is liable to
pay the compensation to the
27 MVC No.2012/2023
SCCH-25
claimants and directed to deposit the
same within 60 days from the date of
this judgment.
On deposit of compensation, the
petitioner No.1(b) to (i) are entitled to
withdraw the entire amount of
Rs.3,52,000/- (Rs.44,000/- x 8)
awarded under the head of Loss of
Consortium with interest on proper
identification.
The petitioner No.1(a) is entitled
to withdraw 70% and remaining 30%
shall be invested as FD in any
nationalized bank for a period of
three years.
The Advocates fee of Rs.1,000/-
fixed.
Draw the award accordingly.
(Directly typed and computerized by the stenographer, corrected by
me and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 2nd day of
August, 2025).
(Raghavendra. R.)
XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT,
Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined for the Petitioner/s:
P.W.1 : Sri. Shivanna
28 MVC No.2012/2023
SCCH-25
List of documents exhibited for the Petitioner/s:
Ex.P1 Certified copy of FIR with complaint
Ex.P2 Certified copy of IMV report
Ex.P3 Discharge summary (4 in Nos.)
Ex.P4 Certified copy of charge sheet
Ex.P5 Certified copy of further complaint
Ex.P6 Certified copy of requisition given to
Magistrate
Ex.P7 Certified copy of Inquest report
Ex.P8 Certified copy of PM report
Ex.P9 Death Certificate
Ex.P10 Medical bills (26 in Nos.)
Ex.P11 Notarized copy of Aadhar Cards of deceased
and Petitioners (10 in Nos.)
Ex.P12 Notarized copy of RTCs 2 in Nos.
Ex.P13 Notarized copy of Ration Card of family of
petitionerList of witnesses examined for the respondent/s:
— NIL —
List of documents exhibited for the Respondent/s:
— NIL —
(Raghavendra. R.)
XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT,
Bangalore.
Digitally signed by
RAMACHANDRAPPA
RAMACHANDRAPPA RAGHAVENDRA
RAGHAVENDRA
Date: 2025.08.13
17:21:22 +0530