[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
Chandraleka vs Sumathi on 2 June, 2025
KABC020126912021
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.3216/2021
Dated this 2nd day of June, 2025
Petitioners: 1. Chandraleka D/o Shankar
W/o Velangani,
Aged about 20 years,
R/at 187, 10th Cross,
New Bengaluru Layout,
St. Thomos Town,
Bengaluru - 560 084.
2. Koushalya D/o Late Velankani,
Aged about 5 years,
10th Cross, New Bengaluru Layout,
St. Thomos Town,
Bengaluru - 560 084.
3. Anitha W/o Kumar,
No.13/2, 4th Cross,
St. Thomos Town,
Bengaluru - 560 084.
2 MVC No.3216/2021
(Sri B. N. Sunil Kumar, Advocate)
V/s
Respondents: 1. Sumathi W/o Selvan,
No.3/1512, Vennampatti,
Periya Perumal, Kovil Street,
Railway Gate, Dharmapuri,
Tamilnadu - 636 705.
(Sri R. Omkumar, Advocate)
2. Sri Ram General Insurance
Company Ltd.,
Old Bengaluru Layout,
9th Floor, 121, Dickenson Road,
M.G. Road, Bengaluru.
(Sri Gururaj Salur, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-
from the respondents, on account of death of Velangani,
who is husband of petitioner No.1, father of petitioners No.2
and son of petitioner No.3, in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
3 MVC No.3216/2021
On 01-10-2014 at about 11:30 a.m., the deceased
Velangani was proceeding in Chicken vehicle as Supervisor
along with loader Karthik, who were sitting in the cabin,
driven by its driver Saravanan. When the lorry reached near
Gopichandra Perumal Temple, Krishnagiri, Hosur main road,
on 02-10-2014 at 3.00 a.m., the lorry bearing No.TN-29-AC-
1471 which was coming from Ambur side, driven by its driver
in rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic
rules, endangering to human life, applied sudden brake and
due to which the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling
dashed against the said lorry. Due to said impact, the driver
Saravanan and Velangani died on the spot. Earlier to the
accident, the deceased was working as Supervisor in
Paramount Chicken and was earning a sum of Rs.35,000/- per
month. He was contributing his entire earnings to his family.
Due to untimely death of a sole bread earner, the petitioners
are struggling for their livelihood. The Shoolagiri Police have
registered the case against the driver of the said lorry for the
4 MVC No.3216/2021offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C.
The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the
insurer of the offending vehicle. Hence, they are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
Therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition and award
compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- with interest at the rate of
10% per annum.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the
respondents No.1 and 2 have appeared through their
counsel. The respondent No.2 has filed the written
statement. Whereas, the respondent No.1 did not choose to
file her written statement.
4. The respondent No.2 in its written statement has
denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has
admitted the issuance of insurance policy in favour of
respondent No.1 in respect of lorry bearing Reg. No. TN-29-
AC-1471 and its validity as on the date of accident. Further, it
5 MVC No.3216/2021
has sought permission to contest even on behalf of
respondent No.1, as per Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles
Act. It seeks protection under Section 147 and 149 of Motor
Vehicles Act. It has denied the age, income and avocation of
the deceased. It has contended that, there is no negligence
on the part of the driver of lorry bearing No.TN-29-AC-1471,
the alleged accident was taken place due to sole negligence
on the part of the driver of lorry bearing No.KA-53-1814, who
drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the rear portion of the lorry bearing No.TN-29-AC-
1471, as the said lorry was moving in the left side of the road,
slowly and by following all traffic rules and regulations.
Further it is contended that, the petition is bad for non-
joinder of proper and necessary parties, as the owner and
insurer of the lorry bearing No.KA-53-1814 are not made as
parties to the proceedings. It has contended that, the driver
of the offending lorry was not holding valid and effective
driving licence to drove the same and the lorry was not
6 MVC No.3216/2021
having valid permit and fitness certificate, as on the date of
accident. It has contended that, the petition is bad for non
compliance of provision under Sections 134(c) and 158(6) of
Motor Vehicles Act. Further it has contended that, the
compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. For
the above denials and contentions, it is prayed to dismiss the
petition.
5. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the
following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that,
deceased Velangani has succumbed to
the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle
accident, alleged to have been occurred
on 02-10-2014 at about 3.00 a.m., due
to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the Lorry bearing registration
No.TN-29-AC-1471 ?
7 MVC No.3216/2021
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to
compensation? If so, what is the
quantum and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?
6. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 has
got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked total 7
documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. On the other hand, the
respondent No.2 has examined the Special Sub Inspector of
Police, Soolagiri Police Station as R.W.1. No document has
been got marked by the respondent No.2. On the other
hand, the respondent No.1 has not adduced any evidence
on her behalf.
7. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and
perused the entire material placed on record.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative
8 MVC No.3216/2021Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative
Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the
following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioners that, on
01-10-2014 at about 11:30 a.m., the deceased Velangani was
proceeding in Chicken vehicle as Supervisor along with
loader Karthik, who were sitting in the cabin, driven by its
driver Saravanan. When the lorry reached near Gopichandra
Perumal Temple, Krishnagiri, Hosur main road, on 02-10-
2014 at 3.00 a.m., the lorry bearing No.TN-29-AC-1471 which
was coming from Ambur side, driven by its driver in rash
and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules,
endangering to human life, applied sudden brake and due
to which the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling
dashed against the said lorry. Due to said impact, the driver
Saravanan and Velangani died on the spot. Further it is
contended that, earlier to the accident, the deceased was
9 MVC No.3216/2021
working as Supervisor in Paramount Chicken and was
earning a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month. He was
contributing his entire earnings to his family. Due to
untimely death of a sole bread earner, the petitioners are
struggling for their livelihood.
10. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 has
got examined herself as P.W.1 by filing examination-in-chief
affidavit, wherein she has reiterated the entire averments
made in the petition. Further, in support of their oral
evidence, the petitioners have got marked total 7
documents as Ex.P.1 to 7. Out of the said documents, Ex.P.1
is true copy of F.I.R., Ex.P.2 is true copy of first information
statement, Ex.P.3 is true copy of charge-sheet, Ex.P.4 is true
copy of sketch, Ex.P.5 is true copy of inquest report, Ex.P.6 is
true copy of post-mortem report and Ex.P.7 are notarised
copy of Aadhar cards (total 3).
10 MVC No.3216/2021
11. On meticulously going through the above police
documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 6, prima-facia it reveals that,
the accident in question has taken place due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of offending lorry bearing
Reg. No. TN-29-AC-1471 and applying sudden brake. Due to
sudden application of break by the driver of offending
vehicle, the lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-53-1814 in which the
deceased Velangani was travelling dashed against the rare
portion of said vehicle. Due to said impact, the driver
Saravanan and Velangani died on the spot. The investigation
officer in his charge-sheet/final report, marked as Ex.P.3, has
clearly stated that, the said accident is caused due to rash
and negligent driving of the offending lorry bearing Reg.
No.TN-29-AC-1471 and the driver Saravanan and Velangani
have succumbed to grievous injuries sustained in the said
accident.
12. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that, in the present
case, the date, time and place of accident, involvement of
11 MVC No.3216/2021
car bearing Reg. No.TN-29-AC-1471 in the said accident,
issuance of insurance policy by the respondent No.2 in
respect of said vehicle and its validity as on the date of
accident, are not in dispute. Further, the oral and
documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners
has remained undisputed by the owner of offending
vehicle/Respondent No.1, as she did not choose file her
written statement and contest the case of the petitioner.
Whereas, the respondent No.2 insurance company has
specifically denied the above averred facts and
circumstances of the accident and taken specific defence
that, the said accident has occurred solely due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-53-
1814, who drove the same in rash and negligent manner
and dashed against the rear portion of the lorry bearing
No.TN-29-AC-1471, as the said lorry was moving in the left
side of the road, slowly and by following all traffic rules and
regulations. Further it is contended that, though the
12 MVC No.3216/2021
accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving
of the driver of lorry bearing No.KA-53-1814, the police
authorities colluding with the petitioners have filed a false
charge-sheet against the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.
No.TN-29-AC-1471, to claim compensation from the
respondent No.2 and to have wrongful gain. But, the
respondent No.2 has failed to establish the said contentions.
In order to establish the above contentions, the respondent
No.2 has summoned the Special Sub-Inspector of Police,
Soolagiri Police Station and examined him R.W.1. He has
deposed in his evidence that, in Crime No.343/2014, one
Amir Pasha was the investigation officer and the charge-
sheet is filed by the Inspector of his Police Station by name
Subhash. Further he has deposed that, the case was
registered against the driver of offending vehicle by name K.
Suresh, for the offences punishable under Sec.279 and
304(A) of I.P.C. Further he has deposed that, the offending
vehicle was having valid permit and other relevant
13 MVC No.3216/2021
documents, as on the date of accident and the accused was
holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the
offending vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN-29-AC-1471. There is
nothing worth in the evidence of R.W.1, which supports the
above contentions of the respondent No.2. Except
examining the R.W.1, the respondent No.2 has neither
adduced any other evidence or produced any document to
establish the above contentions, nor it has produced any
rebuttal evidence to disprove the oral and documentary
evidence placed on record by the petitioner. Even, the
respondent No.2 has not stepped into witness box to
depose the contentions taken in its written statement on
oath. 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 lorry bearing Reg. No.TN-
29-AC-1471 and deceased Velangani has succumbed to
grievous injuries sustained in the said accident on the spot.
14 MVC No.3216/2021
Though, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has cross-
examined P.W.1 in length, nothing worth has been elicited
from her mouth which creates doubt on the veracity of her
evidence or which goes to show that, the said accident has
taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the lorry bearing No.KA-53-1814 or there was any
contributory negligence on his part in the cause of accident.
Further, the petitioner/P.W.1 has unequivocally denied the
suggestions made in his cross-examination that, the said
accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-53-1814 and there
was no fault on the part of the driver of lorry bearing Reg.
No.TN-29-AC-1471.
13. Further, the Ex.P.4 sketch also clearly speaks that, the
said accident has taken place on Krishnagiri-Hosur main
road, near Gopichandraperumal Temple, Perumal Koli
Street, Chennai, in between the lorry bearing No.KA-53-1814
and the offending lorry bearing Reg. No.TN-29-AC-1471.
15 MVC No.3216/2021
Further, it is not the case of the respondent No.2 that, the
accident is caused due to any mechanical defects in the
vehicles involved in the accident. When the accident was not
caused due to any mechanical defects in the offending
vehicle and there was no negligence on the part of the
driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-53-1814, 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 the driver of offending lorry bearing
No.TN-29-AC-1471. There is absolutely no rebuttal evidence
placed on record by the respondent No.2 and even nothing
has been brought out in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to
show that, the said accident has occurred due to the
negligence of the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-53-1814
or there was any contributory negligence on his part in the
cause of accident. The investigation officer in his final report,
marked as Ex.P.3, has clearly stated that, the said accident is
caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending
16 MVC No.3216/2021
lorry bearing Reg. No.TN-29-AC-1471. There is absolutely no
rebuttal evidence produced by the respondents to disprove
the case of the petitioners and even nothing has been
elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to show that, the
said accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving
of the driver of lorry bearing No.KA-53-1814.
14. Further, the Ex.P.6 Post-mortem report clearly speaks
that, the deceased Velangani has died due to haemorrhage
and shock due to injuries on vital organs sustained in the
road traffic accident. The investigation officer in his Ex.P.3
final report/charge-sheet has clearly stated that, the
accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving
of the driver of offending lorry bearing Reg. No.TN-29-AC-
1471 and the deceased has sustained grievous injuries and
died on the spot. Admittedly, the said final report/charge-
sheet has not been challenged by the owner or the driver of
offending vehicle. In such circumstances, there is no
impediment to believe the final report of the investigation
17 MVC No.3216/2021
officer and other police records, regarding the date, time
and place of accident, involvement of the offending vehicle,
rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending lorry
bearing Reg. No.TN-29-AC-1471, injuries caused to deceased
Velangani in the said accident and cause of his death.
15. 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.”
16. 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
18 MVC No.3216/2021
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.”
17. 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 Velangani has succumbed to
the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, occurred on
02-10-2014 at about 3:00 a.m., on Krishnagiri-Hosur main
road, near Gopichandraperumal Temple, Perumal Koli
Street, Chennai, due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of offending lorry bearing Reg. No.TN-29-AC-1471.
Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in Affirmative.
18. Issue No.2: While answering above issue, for the
reasons stated therein, this Court has already held that, the
19 MVC No.3216/2021
petitioners have successfully proved through cogent and
corroborative evidence that, the accident has caused due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing
No.TN-29-AC-1471 and deceased Velangani has sustained
grievous injuries in the said accident 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,
which are marked as Ex.P.7. The said documents clearly
goes to show that, the petitioner No.1 is wife, petitioner
No.2 is daughter and petitioner No.3 is mother of deceased
Velangani. On the other hand, the relationship of the
petitioners with the deceased Velangani is not specifically
disputed by the respondent No.2 in the case and even there
is no rebuttal evidence with respect to same. In such
circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the above
documents produced by the petitioners and hold that, the
20 MVC No.3216/2021
petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased
Velangani.
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of National
Insurance Co. V/s Birender, reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356,
has clearly held that,
“The legal representatives of the
deceased could move application for
compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section
166(1). The major married son who is also
earning and not fully dependant on the
deceased, would be still covered by the
expression “legal representative” of the
deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera (supra)
had expounded that liability to pay
compensation under the Act does not cease
because of absence of dependency of the
concerned legal representative. Notably, the
expression “legal representative” has not been
defined in the Act.
The Tribunal has a duty to make an
award, determine the amount of compensation
which is just and proper and specify the person
or persons to whom such compensation would
be paid. The latter part relates to the
entitlement of compensation by a person who
claims for the same.
According to Section 2(11) CPC, “legal
representative” means a person who in law
represents the Tractor and Trally bearing
No.AP-03-AN-8690 & AP-03-AN-8712 estate of a
21 MVC No.3216/2021
deceased person, and includes any person who
intermeddles with the estate of the deceased
and where a party sues or is sued in a
representative character the person on whom
the estate devolves on the death of the party so
suing or sued. Almost in similar terms is the
definition of legal representative under the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 i.e. under
Section 2(1)(g).
It is thus settled by now that the legal
representatives of the deceased have a right to
apply for compensation. Having said that, it
must necessarily follow that even the major
married and earning sons of the deceased
being legal representatives have a right to
apply for compensation and it would be the
bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the
application irrespective of the fact whether the
concerned legal representative was fully
dependent on the deceased and not to limit the
claim towards conventional heads only.”
20. According to the ratio laid down in above 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
22 MVC No.3216/2021
deceased and other conventional heads are to be
ascertained.
21. The compensation towards loss of dependency: The
petitioner No.1 is wife, petitioner No.2 is daughter and
petitioners No.3 is mother of deceased Velangani. The oral
and documentary evidence placed on record by the
petitioners clearly established that, they are legal
representatives of the deceased Velangani and they were
depending on his income. Hence, the petitioners 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 28 years. To substantiate this point, the
petitioners have produced the post-mortem report of
deceased Velangani, which is marked as Ex.P.6, wherein the
age of the deceased is mentioned as 38 years. Therefore, as
23 MVC No.3216/2021
on the date of accident the age of the deceased was 38
years. It is averred in the petition that, as on the date of
accident the deceased was hale and healthy and was
working as Supervisor in Paramount Chicken and was
earning a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month. To substantiate the
same, the petitioners have not produced any document to
show that, the deceased Velangani was working as
Supervisor in Paramount Chicken and was earning a sum of
Rs.35,000/- per month. No document has been produced by
the petitioners to prove the avocation and income of the
deceased. In such circumstances, there is no other option
before this Court, except to consider the notional income 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
24 MVC No.3216/2021
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,
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 has taken place in the
year 2014. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased
as per the guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority is to be treated as Rs.8,500/- per month.
Therefore, the annual income of the deceased in the present
case is held as Rs.1,02,000/-.
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 he was not a permanent
25 MVC No.3216/2021
employee as on the date of death. Since the deceased was
aged about 38 years and was not a permanent employee,
the future prospects would be 40% of his income, which
comes to Rs.40,800/-. Therefore, the future prospects of the
deceased is held as Rs.40,800/-. If this income is added to
the notional income, then it comes to Rs.1,42,800/-. 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 3 persons i.e., petitioners No.1 to 3. The total
number of the dependents of the deceased are three.
Therefore, deduction towards the personal expenses of
deceased is taken as 1/3rd of the total income, which comes
to Rs.47,600/-. After deducting 1/3rd out of total income,
towards the personal expenses of deceased, the annual
income of the deceased is held as Rs.95,200/-.
26 MVC No.3216/2021
iv) As on the date of death, the age of the deceased
was 38 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
2009 ACJ 1298 S.C., the appropriate multiplier in the present
case is taken as 15. Accordingly, the compensation under
the head of loss of dependency is held as Rs.95,200/- x 15 =
Rs.14,28,000/-.
v) Compensation under conventional heads: In
the present case, admittedly the petitioner No.1 is wife,
petitioner No.2 is daughter and petitioner No.3 is mother of
deceased Velangani. Hence, the petitioners No.1 to 3 are
entitled for compensation under the head of spousal,
parental and filial 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:
27 MVC No.3216/2021
a) Loss of estate - Rs. 15,000/-
b) Loss of consortium - Rs. 40,000/- each
c) Funeral expenses - Rs. 15,000/-
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, parental and filial consortium comes to
Rs.48,000/- each to petitioners No.1 to 3 and funeral
expenses comes to Rs.18,000/-.
22. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation under different heads as follows :
Sl. Head of
Amount/Rs
No. Compensation
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 14,28,000-00
2. Loss of spousal, parental Rs. 1,44,000-00
and filial consortium
3. Loss of estate Rs. 18,000-00
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000-00
Total Rs. 16,08,000-00
28 MVC No.3216/2021
23. 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.”
24. 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 are entitled
for compensation of Rs.16,08,000/-, 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.40,800/- x 15 x 2/3 = Rs.4,08,000/-).
25. Liability: Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the
respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the
insurer of the offending vehicle. Further, as on the date of
29 MVC No.3216/2021
accident the driver of the offending vehicle was holding valid
and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle
and the insurance policy issued by the respondent No.2 in
respect of offending vehicle bearing Reg. No. TN-29-AC-1471
was valid. Further, the evidence placed on record by the
petitioners clearly establishes that, due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle bearing
Reg. No. TN-29-AC-1471 the said accident has occurred and
the deceased Velangani has succumbed to grievous 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 damages caused by
the said vehicle. The respondent No.2 being the insurer of
the vehicle has to indemnify the respondent No.1.
Therefore, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
However, the primary liability is on the respondent No.2 to
pay the compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, for the
30 MVC No.3216/2021
above stated reasons, holding that, the petitioners are
entitled for compensation of Rs.16,08,000/-, 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.4,08,000/-) from the respondent No.2, I answer Issue
No.2 in Partly Affirmative.
26. 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.16,08,000/- (Rupees
sixteen lakh eight thousand only), 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.4,08,000/-).
31 MVC No.3216/2021
The respondents 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.2 –
Insurance Company and it is directed to
pay the compensation amount within
two months from the date of this order.
The above compensation amount is
apportioned as follows:
Petitioner No.1 – Wife – 40%
Petitioner No.2 – Daughter – 30%
Petitioner No.3 – Mother – 30%
Out of total compensation amount
awarded in favour of petitioners No.1
and 3, 30% of the compensation amount
with proportionate interest shall be
deposited in their names as fixed
deposit in any nationalized bank for the
period of three years with liberty to
draw the accrued interest periodically
and the remaining 70% amount with
proportionate interest shall be released
32 MVC No.3216/2021in their favour, through e-payment on
proper identification and verification.
The entire compensation amount
with proportionate interest awarded in
favour of petitioner No.2, shall be
deposited in her name as fixed deposit
in any nationalized bank till she attains
the age of majority.
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 2 nd day of June,
2025)(Mohammed Yunus Athani)
Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners
P.W.1: Chandralekha W/o Velangani
Documents marked on behalf of petitioners
Ex.P.1: True copy of F.I.R.
Ex.P.2: True copy of First Information Statement
Ex.P.3: Certified copy of Charge-sheet
Ex.P.4: Certified copy of Sketch
33 MVC No.3216/2021
Ex.P.5: Certified copy of Inquest Report
Ex.P.6: Certified copy of Post-mortem Report
Ex.P.7: Notarized copy of Aadhar Cards (total 3)
Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents
R.W.1: G. Chandrashekar S/o Govinda Swamy
Documents marked on behalf of respondents
-Nil-
(Mohammed Yunus Athani)
Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
Digitally signed
by
MOHAMMED MOHAMMED
YUNUS A
YUNUS A ATHANI
ATHANI Date:
2025.06.09
11:17:40 +0530
[ad_2]
Source link