Bangalore District Court
Janaki vs Bhargav .K.A on 21 June, 2025
KABC020445842023
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 21st DAY OF JUNE 2025
MVC No.8615/2023
PETITIONER: 1. Smt. Janaki
W/o Late Srinatha N.
Alias Srinivasa N.,
Aged about 24 years,
2. Kum. Mahalakshmi S.
D/o Late Srinatha N.
Alias Srinivasa N.,
Aged about 4 years,
3. Kum. Manvitha
D/o Late Srinatha N.
Alias Srinivasa N.,
Aged about 2 years,
4. Smt. Sarasamma
W/o Narayanappa,
Aged about 60 years,
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.8615/2023
5. Sri. Narayanappa
S/o Late Ramappa,
Aged about 65 years,
6. Smt. Devi
D/o Narayanappa,
Aged about 41 years,
7. Smt. Padma
D/o Narayanappa,
Aged about 33 years,
8. Smt. Meena
D/o Narayanappa,
Aged about 30 years,
Since petitioners No.2 & 3
are minors,
Rep. by their mother natural
guardian the 1st petitioner
herein.
All are R/at Yalaburgi
Village, Karahalli Post,
Bangarpet Taluk,
Kolar District - 563 162.
(By Sri.N. M. Ananda,
Advocate/s.)
V/S
RESPONDENTS: 1. Bhargav K.A.
S/o Amarnath M.,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at No.162/2, Dodduru
Karapanahalli Village and
Post, Bangarpet Taluk,
Kolar Dist. - 563 162.
SCCH-25 3 MVC No.8615/2023
(By Sri. N.Narayanappa,
Advocate.)
2. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins.
Co. ltd.,
Golden Heights, 4th Floor,
No.1/2, 59th 'C' Cross,
4th 'M' Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 010.
(Policy No.OG-24-9910-
1825-00080736)
(By Smt.R.Sharadamba,
Advocate.)
******
JUDGMENT
This judgment arise out of claim petition filed by the
claimants against respondents under Section 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as “Act”)
praying for awarding compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for
the death of Srinatha N. alias Srinivasa N. was died in a
road traffic accident that occurred on 24.11.2023 at
about 12.30pm.
2. The case of the claimants in nutshell is that:
On 24.11.2023 at about 12.30pm, the deceased
Srinatha N. alias Srinivasa N. was going towards Bangarpet
Bust Stand by walking on the footpath on Kolar-Bangarpet
Road, infront of APMC Yard, Bangarpet Town, Kolar District,
SCCH-25 4 MVC No.8615/2023a Maruthi Suzuki Grand Vitara Car bearing Reg.No.KA-08-M-
9689 came from same direction i.e., from Kolar side, driven
by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner
and lost control over his vehicle and went to its wrong side of
the footpath road and dashed against the deceased from
behind. Due to impact, the deceased was knocked down and
sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, after the accident,
the deceased was taken to Government Hospital, Bangarpet,
provided first and thereater shifted to R.L.Jalappa Hospital,
Tamaka, Kolar and inturn to S.N.R.Hospital, Kolar. On the
same day he was taken to NIMHANS, Bengaluru and
thereafter Shreyas Hospital, Muneshwara Block, Bengaluru
wherein he was treated as an inpaient. On the late night of
25.11.2023 since the chances of survival of the deceased was
bleak, in the hospital authorities directed the deceased’s
attendants to shift him elsewhere. Accordingly, on
26.11.2023 at about 1.30am the deceased was being taken to
Government Hospital, Bangarpet. But he succumbed to the
said injuries on the way to the hospital. Postmortem was
conducted at Govt. Hospital, Bangarpet.
It is to be noted here that, in the plaint column
No.1 the deceased’s father name is mentioned as Late
Mahadevaiah instead of Narayanappa. The materials
produced by the petitioners on record shows the
deceased father’s name is Narayanappa. Henceforth,
deceased’s father name will be considered as
SCCH-25 5 MVC No.8615/2023
Narayanappa.
3. It is the further case of the petitioners that, prior
to the date of accident deceased was hale and healthy, doing
Mason Work under different employers and drawing salary of
Rs.30.000/- Per month. The deceased was maintaining the
family members. Due to the sudden and untimely death of
the deceased, the petitioners are terribly and mentally
shocked and they have lost love and affection of the deceased.
Hence, the petitioners claims Rs.50,00,000/- as the general
damages for death of deceased, for mental shock and agony,
for loss of earnings, loss of future earning of the deceased, for
loss of love and affections. So far the petitioners have spent
Rs.2,00,000/- towards treatment, medicine, transportation of
deadbody and funeral obsequies. The respondent No.1 being
the RC owner and the respondent No.2 being the insurer of
the offending Maruthi Suzuki Grand Vitara Car are jointly
and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
4. The accident in question was taken place due to
rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Maruthi
Suzuki Grand Vitara Car by its driver. The Bangarpet Police
have registered a case against the driver of the offending Car
in Cr.No.342/23. For the aforesaid reasons, the claimants
have prayed for awarding total compensation of
Rs.50,00,000/- under various heads.
SCCH-25 6 MVC No.8615/2023
5. In pursuance of the notices, the respondents
appeared through their respective counsels and filed separate
written statements.
5A. The respondent No.1 has filed the written
statement admitting the ownership of the car and the
respondent No.2 is the insurer of the Car. Further contended
that there is 5 feet distance in between the Road and foot
path and the driver of the offending Car was driving his
vehicle at Road left side by traveling the traffic rules and the
deceased has suddenly jumped from foot path and came to a
road because the footpath is not in right level of position and
because of his due negligence the alleged accident occurred
and hence there is no willful grave negligence on the part of
the driver of the offending Car. Further denied the manner of
accident and also denied the age, occupation, income of the
deceased. Further denied the relationship of the petitioner
No.1 with the deceased. Hence, prayed for dismiss the
petition as against him.
5B. The respondent No.2 has filed the written
statement denying the entire petition averments except
admitting the issuance of policy in respect of the Car vide its
policy No.OG-24-9910-1825-00080736 valid from 22.08.2023
to 21.08.2024 as own damage section policy and from
22.08.2023 to 21.08.2026 as liability only policy and same is
SCCH-25 7 MVC No.8615/2023
in the possession of the insured. Further contended that the
person driving the vehicle has “no relation in force” as on the
date of accident to drive the said vehicle. The insured cum
driver of the vehicle bearing No.KA-08-M-9689 was not
holding valid and effective DL as on the date of accident. It
has denied the involvement of the offending vehicle in the
accident and manner of accident also. 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. prayed to
dismiss the petition with costs.
6. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the
following issues are framed for determination.
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, they
are the legal representatives and dependents
of the deceased Srinatha N. alias Srinivasa
N.?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that, the
deceased Srinatha N. alias Srinivasa N, had
died due to the injuries sustained in the
road traffic accident that occurred on
24.11.2023 at about 12.30pm near Kolar
Bangarpet road, infront of APMC Yard,
Bangarpet Town, Kolar District, due to rash
and negligent driving of driver of Maruti
Suzuki Grand Vitara Car bearing
Reg.No.KA-08-M-9689 as alleged?
SCCH-25 8 MVC No.8615/2023
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation as claimed? If so, what
amount and from whom?
4. What order or Award?
7. In order to substantiate the claim petition
contention, the petitioner No.1 has examined herself as PW-1
and got marked total 10 documents as Exs.P1 to 10. They
have also got examined Mr.Madhu – eye witness as PW.2 and
got marked Ex.P.2(a). The respondent No.2 got examined
Junior Engineer as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.3.
Dr.Sudhakar – Joint and bone specialist, Government
Hospital, Bangarpet got examined as RW.2 and got marked
Exs.R.4 and R.5. The respondent No.2 also got examined
Sri.Chaitresh D. Habbu – Asst. Manager as Rw.3 and got
marked Exs.R.6 to R.8.
8. I have heard the arguments canvassed by the
counsel for the parties.
The counsel for the Respondent No.2 has relied upon the following
decisions:
1. MFA No.1192/2018 : Thippeshappa and Vs. KSRTC.
2. MFA No.2259/2018 C/w 4578/2018 : Managing Director, KSRTC Vs.
Parameshwar C. Aralaguppi & Ors.
The counsel for the Petitioners has relied upon the following decisions:
1. (2017) 16 SC 680 : National Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.
SCCH-25 9 MVC No.8615/2023
2. 2024 ACJ 666 : Oriental Ins. Co. ltd., Vs. Shipra Debnath and Ors.
3. (2020) 11 SC 356 : national Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Birender and Ors.
4. High Court Lokaadalath Chart.
9. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence let
in before this tribunal, my answers to the above points are as
follows:
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the affirmatively.
Issue No.3 : Partly in affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per final order, for the foregoing;
REASONS
10. Issue Nos.1 and 2: As these issues are inter-
linked each other, as such I considered these issues together
for common discussion and also to avoid repetition of facts of
the case. As I referred above, In order to substantiate the
claim petition contention, the petitioner No.1 has examined
herself as PW-1 and got marked total Ten documents as
Ex.P1 to 10 and closed their side evidence. The respondent
No.2 has examined Junior Engineer as RW.1 and got marked
Exs.R.1 to R.3. Dr.Sudhakar – Joint and bone specialist,
Government Hospital, Bangarpet got examined as RW.2 and
got marked Exs.R.4 and R.5. The respondent No.2 also got
examined Sri.Chaitresh D. Habbu – Asst. Manager as Rw.3
and got marked Exs.R.6 to R.8. The details of the exhibits
are given in the annexure of the judgment.
SCCH-25 10 MVC No.8615/2023
11. The PW.1 has reiterated the petition averments in
the chief examination. The PW.1 has been subjected to cross
examination. In the cross examination she has admitted that
sisters of the deceased have got married and they are living
in their husband’s houses. The Complaint was lodged by her
brother-in-law. She deposed that the accident occurred when
the deceased was trying to cross the road.
12. The PW.2 has reiterated the case of the petitioner
in chief examination. He deposed that deceased was walking
from Kolar to Bangarpet beside the road. The road is 40ft
wide on each side with divider. There are no obstacles for the
movement of vehicles. He was standing about 100 feet away
from the accident spot. He further deposed that Exs.P.2 & 3
are prepared as per his statement. The accident spot is
around 3km away from Bangarpet bus stand. She further
denied other suggestions made by the learned counsel for the
parties.
13. The Asst. Manager of the 2nd respondent has
reproduced the objections statement contents in his chief
examination. He had totally denied the suggestions of the
petitioners’ counsel that the accident caused due to the
negligence of the driver of the offending Car.
14. To prove the relationship of the petitioners with
SCCH-25 11 MVC No.8615/2023
the deceased, they have produced notarized copy of Aadhar
Cards of petitioners and the deceased as per Exs.P8. Ex.P.4
Inquest mahazar also shows the names and relationship of
the petitioners with the deceased.
15. It is main defense of the respondent No.1 that the
accident was occurred due to fault of the deceased and the
deceased was suddenly entered to road from footpath. The
insurer had taken a contention that the deceased was
crossing the raod without paying heed to ongoing traffic. It is
undisputed fact that the PW.1 has clearly deposed in the
cross examination that the accident occurred when the
deceased was trying to cross the road. It is neither case of the
respondent No.1 nor police records depicts that the deceased
was trying to cross the road. The insurance company has
suggested the same to eye witnesses examined by the
petitioner. But, they failed to elicit the same from eye-
witnesses. The PW.1 is not the eye-witnesses to the alleged
accident. Then respondent No.2 ought to have establish this
fact with independent witnesses. It is true that the insurer
has examined their official. But, their evidence has totally
based on the police documents. Hence, it is appears to Court
that the admission given by the PW.1 is nothing but a stray
admission.
16. It is undisputed fact that the there was a delay in
SCCH-25 12 MVC No.8615/2023
lodging the case. The First information report indicates that,
the informant had not lodged the complaint in time as he has
given importance of speedy recover of injured person was
unaware of legal proceedings. 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
SCCH-25 13 MVC No.8615/2023
claim cannot be dismissed merely on that
ground although lodging of FIR is vital in
deciding motor accident claim cases. Delay
in lodging 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.”
17. 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 within time as the complainant has given
importance of speedy recover of injured person. 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
SCCH-25 14 MVC No.8615/2023
significance than delay in lodging thereof.
18. The petitioners have totally relied on the police
document to substantiate their claim and also rash and
negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle. The sketch
prepared by the investigating officer while drawing spot
mahazar indicates that the deceased was walking on the
footpath in front of APMC office towards Bangarpet Bus
Stand at that time the car bearing No.KA-08-M-9689 came
from Kolar side on Bangarpet-Kolar Road. The damages
reflected in the motor vehicle report clearly depicts that
gravity of offense. The police documents and other materials
are clearly discloses that the 1st respondent/RC owner has
dashed his vehicle to the deceased. Further more, the
investigating officer had led the charge sheet after thorough
investigation.
19. The oral evidence and the entire police records
depicts that, the accident was caused due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending Car. A perusal of the entire
evidence of the PW.1 in respect to alleged accident, it is very
relevant to note that, the respondent No.2 has simply denied
the mode of accident but no rebuttal evidence has led before
the Court. Further, the police documents are corroborated
with oral evidence of the PW.1. It is well settled position of
law that the proceedings under Motor Vehicle Act are
SCCH-25 15 MVC No.8615/2023
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. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held in a decision 12018 (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 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 judgment 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
1
Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
SCCH-25 16 MVC No.8615/2023see 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
matter 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
SCCH-25 17 MVC No.8615/2023trauma 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 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”
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. The materials on records are clearly indicates that
SCCH-25 18 MVC No.8615/2023the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving
of the respondent No.1 or driver of the offending vehicle.
Hence, I hold issue Nos.1 & 2 are in the affirmative.
20. Issue No.3:
The Petitioner Nos.1 to 7 are being wife, minor
children, father, mother and sisters of the deceased. It is
contention of the petitioners that the deceased was doing
Mason Work and earning of Rs.30,000/- Per month. The
petitioner No.1 has reiterated the same in the chief
examination affidavit. But the petitioners have not placed
any material worth in this regard. As per the claim petition
the age of the deceased was 32 years. The Aadhar Card of
the deceased at Ex.P.8 discloses that the deceased age was
32 years. As I mentioned above, the petitioners have not
placed any material worth to show the exact income of the
deceased. So, considering the nature of 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.16,000/- P.M. 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, if an injured person is below 40
years, then 40% of future prospects should be added to his
monthly income. So, the monthly income of deceased is
SCCH-25 19 MVC No.8615/2023Rs.16,000/- and the 40% of future prospects of his income
would come to Rs.6,400/- then after adding the future
prospects to his total income it comes to Rs.22,400/-. As per
Sarala Varma’s case the multiplier applicable to the case on
hand is 16. It is pertinent to note that, petitioner No.6 to 8
are the married sisters of the deceased. They are all residing
in their husband’s house. Considering the fact, they are not
depending on the deceased. As such, they are not considered
as dependents of the deceased. Therefore, Petitioner Nos.1 to
5 are the dependents of the deceased. If there are 4 to 6
dependents, then 1/4th of the income has to deducted
towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased.
Then the total income of the deceased would come
Rs.16,800/- (Rs.22,400/- – Rs.5,600/- = Rs.16,800/-). The
loss of dependency is calculated as below. Rs.16,800/-
(monthly income) x 12 x 16 (multiplier) =Rs.32,25,600/-.
This is just and proper compensation under the head of loss
of dependency.
LOSS OF ESTATE
21. 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
22. In view of the Pranay Sethi‘s case this tribunal
SCCH-25 20 MVC No.8615/2023has no option but to award Rs.18,000/- under this head.
Except these heads the claimants are not entitled for any
compensation.
MEDICAL EXPENSES
23. The petitioners have stated that, they have spent
Rs.1,00,000/- towards hospital and transportation of dead
body. In this regard they have produced medical bills at
Ex.P.9 for Rs.7,500-. There is no contrary to these bills from
the respondents. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled the
said amount under the head of Medical Expenses.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in a
2
judgment reported in (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 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 relations2
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram
SCCH-25 21 MVC No.8615/2023with 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 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
SCCH-25 22 MVC No.8615/2023
to the parents is a compensation for loss of
the love, affection, care and companionship
of the deceased child”.
25. The Petitioner No.1 is being wife and petitioner
Nos.2 & 3 is being minor children of the deceased are entitled
for ‘”Spousal Consortium’ and ‘Parental Consortium’
respectively. In the same manner petitioner Nos.4 & 5 are the
mother and father of the deceased, they are also entitled for
“Filial Consortium”. Hence a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- each) is awarded under this head.
26. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for
compensation under the following heads.
Sl. No. Name of the Head Awarded
Compensation
01. Loss of dependency Rs.32,25,600/-
02. Towards loss of estate Rs.18,000/-
03. Towards Funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
04. Loss of Consortium Rs.2,00,000/-
05. Medical Expenses Rs.7,500/-
TOTAL Rs.34,69,100/-
27. The next question is the liability to pay the said
compensation to the Petitioners. It is not the case of the
either respondents No.1 that, the insurance was not in force
SCCH-25 23 MVC No.8615/2023
at the time of accident. Henceforth, the Respondent No.1 and
2, who are the Owner and Insurer of the said offending car
are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation
amount to the petitioners and consequently the 2 nd
Respondent/Insurer is liable to indemnify the 1st
Respondent/Owner as the policy was in force as on the date
of the accident and pay the entire compensation amount of to
petitioners along with interest at the rate of 6% PA.
28. APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION:
The claimants No.1 to 5 are being the wife, children and
parents of the deceased. Hence, they are entitled for
40:15:15:15:15 ratio respectively in the total compensation
with accrued interest. On deposit of compensation,
the claimants No.1, 4 and 5 are entitled to withdraw 50% of
their share and remaining share shall be invested as FD in
any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years. The entire
share amount of the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 shall be invested as
FD in any nationalized bank till they attain the age of
majority. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 partly in
Affirmative.
29. Issue No.4:- In view of my findings to the above
issues, the claimants are entitled for the compensation at the
at rate of 6% P.A. from the respondent No.1. Accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following:
SCCH-25 24 MVC No.8615/2023
ORDER
The claim petition filed by claimants
under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 is allowed in part.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay
total compensation to the tune of
34,69,100/- (Rupees Thirty four Lakhs
Sixty Nine Thousand One Hundred Only)
together interest @ 6% P.A from the date of
petition till realization.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay
the compensation to the claimants and
directed to deposit the same within 60 days
from the date of this judgment, after
deducting any amount paid as the interim
compensation
The petitioner No.1 to 5 are entitled
for 40:15:15:15:15 ratio respectively in the
total compensation with accrued interest.
On deposit of compensation,
the claimants No.1, 4 and 5 are entitled to
withdraw 50% of their share and remaining
share shall be invested as FD in any
nationalized bank for a period of 3 years.
The entire share amount of the
petitioner Nos.2 & 3 shall be invested as FD
SCCH-25 25 MVC No.8615/2023in any nationalized bank till they attain the
age of majority.
All the interim application if any
pending stands disposed off.
The advocate fee of Rs.1,000/- fixed.
Draw Decree accordingly.
(Directly typed and computerized by the stenographer, corrected by me and then
pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 21st day of June, 2025).
(Raghavendra. R.)
XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT,
Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined for the Petitioner/s:
PW.1 : Smt. Janaki PW.2 : Sri. Madhu
List of documents exhibited for the Petitioner/s:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR with complaint
Ex.P2 True copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P2(a) Signature
Ex.P3 True copy of Spot Sketch
Ex.P4 True copy of Inquest Mahazar
Ex.P5 True copy of PM report
Ex.P6 True copy of IMV report
Ex.P7 True copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P8 Notarized copy of Adhaar cards of
petitioners and deceased
SCCH-25 26 MVC No.8615/2023
Ex.P9 Medical bills 2 in Nos.
Ex.P10 Lab reports 12 in Nos.
List of witnesses examined for the respondent/s:
RW.1 : Sri. Kishore M.R. RW.2 : Dr. Sudhakar RW.3 : Sri. Chaitresh D. Habbu
List of documents exhibited for the Respondent/s:
Ex.R1 : Authorization letter
Ex.R2 : Attested copy of Accident Information
Register's Page Nos.25 & 26.
Ex.R3 : Attested copy of Police Intimation Register
Ex.R4 : Attested copy of Accident Information
Register's Page No.126
Ex.R5 : Attested copy of Police Intimation Register
Ex.R6 : Copy of Policy
Ex.R7 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.R8 : Claim Form and with photos
(Raghavendra. R.)
XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT,
Bangalore.
Digitally signed by
RAMACHANDRAPPA
RAMACHANDRAPPA RAGHAVENDRA
RAGHAVENDRA Date: 2025.06.24 10:56:21
+0530