Bangalore District Court
Kundan Kumar vs M.D. Vrl Logistics Ltd on 18 June, 2025
KABC020222972021
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH-6
Dated this the 18th Day of JUNE 2024
Present: Smt.Chetana S.F.
B.A., L.L.B.,
IV Addl., Small Cause Judge &
ACJM, Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.3628/2021 & 3627/2021
Petitioner/s 1. Sri.Kundan Kumar
in MVC No. S/o Surendra Sah
3628/2021 Aged about 25 years
Permanent resident of
Ward No.05
Madhuwan
Ramnagar Pharsahi Purnia
Chopra Ram Nagar
Bihar-854102
Presently residing at
Kanekallu village
Anugondanahalli hobli,
Hosakote Taluk
Bangalore dist.,
Petitioner/s 1. Sri.Santhosh Sah
in MVC No. S/o Shankar Sah
Aged about 58 years
2 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021
3627/2021 2. Smt.Anitha Devi
W/o Santhosh Sah
Aged about 41 years
both are permanents
R/o Teliyari
Jabe, Purnia
Bihar-854204
Presently residing at
Kanekallu village
Anugondanahalli hobli
Hosakote Taluk
Bangalore dist.,
(By pleader Sri.T.V.Ramesh)
Respondent/s 1. M/s M.D.VRL Logistics Ltd.,
in both Regd and Admn office
cases : NH 4 Bangalore road
Varur
Aralikatti
Hubli-581207
(R-1 Exparte)
2. The New India Assurance co.,
Ltd.,
Motor TP Hub
Mahalakshmi chambers
No.9, 2nd floor, MG road
Bangalore-560 001.
(By Pleader Sri.Nagaraja K for
R2)
* * *
3 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021
COMMON JUDGMENT
These petitions are filed under Section 166 of M.V Act
seeking compensation for the injuries and death caused in a
road traffic accident. Both petitions were arising out of the
same accident, they were clubbed together for recording of
common evidence and judgment.
2. The case of the petitioner is that on 23-3-2021 at
about 7.00 p.m. when the petitioner in MVC No.3628/21
was going towards Kanekallu village from Amazon company
as a pillion rider on the Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle bearing
No.KA-05-IK-9133 ridden by Ranjan Khan Duwal with
another pillion rider namely Mithun Kumar at Bharath petrol
bunk, Samethanahalli village, Hosakote Taluk, Bangalore
dist., driver of the VRL lorry bearing No.KA-25-A-2414 came
from opposite direction with high speed and in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, due to
impact, petitioner in MVC No.3628/21 sustained grievous
injuries and Mithun Kumar in MVC No.3627/21 succumbed
to the injures on the spot.
4 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021
3. The petitioner in MVC No.3628/21 was taken to Aaxis
hospital, Bangalore and took treatment as inpatient and
spent money for his treatment. Due to accidental injuries,
petitioner is suffering from disability and discomforts and lost
his earnings. Hence prays to award the compensation of
Rs.25 lakhs in MVC No.3628/21 and Rs.40 lakhs in MVC
No.3627/21 from the respondents.
4. In response of Tribunal process, the respondent
No.2 has appeared before the Tribunal and filed written
statement. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 has not
appeared before the court. Hence he was placed an exparte.
5. Respondent No.2 filed objections which is common
in both cases, has contended that, rider of the motor bike
was riding the motor cycle with high speed, recklessly and
negligently and without observing any traffic rules and
regulations. Due to high speed and due to weight of three
riders, the rider seems to have lost control over the two
wheeler and dashed against the lorry from behind. The lorry
did not cause any accident. The compensation claimed by
5 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021
the petitioners is exorbitantly high. Hence prays to dismiss
the petitions with costs.
6. The Tribunal in both case had framed the
following issues:
ISSUES IN MVC No.3628/2021
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he had
sustained grievous injuries in an accident
that was occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the VRL
lorry bearing reg.No.KA-25-A-2414 on 23-3-
2021 at about 7. p.m. at Petrol bunk,
Samethanahalli village, Hosakote Taluk,
Bangalore district ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitle for
compensation as prayed for? If so, at what
rate? From whom?
3. What order or award?
ISSUES IN MVC No.3627/2021
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the
deceased Mithun Kumar died due to the
grievous injury sustained by him in an
accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the VRL lorry bearing
reg.No.KA-25-A-2414 on 23-3-2021 at about
7.00 p.m. at Petrol bunk, Samethanahalli
village, Hosakote Taluk, Bangalore district
and he succumbed to the said injury ?
6 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021
2. Whether the petitioners prove that they
are the legal representative of the deceased?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitle for
compensation? If so, how much and from
whom?
4. What order or award?
7. The petitioner No.1 in MVC No.3628/2021 got
examined himself as PW-1 and petitioner No.1 in MVC
No.3627/2021 got examined as PW-2 and doctors got
examined as PW-3 and 4 and one Himamshu Kumar got
examined as PW-5 and got marked Ex-P1 to 26.
8. The findings on the above issues in both cases are as
follows :-
MVC NO.3628/2021:-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.3 : As per final order
MVC NO.3627/2021:-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per final order
7 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021
for the following
REASONS
9. Issue No.1 in MVC.,No.3628/2021 &
3627/2021 :
In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending vehicle, petitioner in MVC
No.3628/2021 got examined himself as PW-1 and petitioner
No.1 in MVC No.3627/2021 got examined himself as PW-2
and got marked documents i.e., FIR, complaint, spot and
seizure mahazar, MV report, wound certificate, charge sheet,
discharge summary, adhar cards PM report, inquest report.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent seriously disputed the cause and manner of the
accident and rash and negligence of the offending vehicle. It
was argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that
deceased by name Ranjan Khan Duwal along with the
deceased Mithun Kumar and Kundan Kumar without wearing
helmet in a rash and negligent manner, without observing
any traffic rules and dashed to the lorry bearing No.KA-25-A-
2414 from the behind and due to the rash and negligence of
8 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021
the rider of the motor cycle, the said accident has been taken
place and hence respondents are not liable to pay the
compensation. Further argued that the rider of the motor
cycle was not having DL and riding the motor cycle without
wearing helmet.
11. In the line of the arguments, if the evidence and
materials a are perused, soon after the accident, Kundan
Kumar S/o Suresh has lodged the complaint before Tirumala
PS as per Ex-P2 against the driver of the offending vehicle.
Based on which jurisdictional police registered the FIR
against the driver of the offending vehicle and also the driver
of the another lorry. Thereafter jurisdictional police
conducted thorough and detailed investigation and filed the
charge sheet against the Sathish P. driver of the lorry bearing
No.KA-25-A-2414 for the offence punishable u/s 279, 338,
304A of IPC r/w 338, 184 of IMV Act by holding that on 23-3-
2021 at about 7 p.m. accused by name Sathish drove the
lorry bearing reg.No.KA-25-A-2414 from Kanekal cross to
Tirumalashettyhalli cross in high speed and rash and
negligent manner near provident Kyapella of Sowkya road
9 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021
and hit to the motor cycle ridden by one Ranjan Kandawala
along with Mithunkumar and Kundan Kumar, as a pillion
riders who were riding the motor cycle without any helmet.
Due to the impact, the rider of the motor cycle hit to the right
portion of the lorry bearing reg.No.KA-53-D-7477 which was
proceeding in front of him, as a result of which the rider of
the motor cycle and pillion rider fell down and sustained
grievous injuries and the rider by name Ranjan and pillion
rider Mithun Kumar succumbed at the spot and another
pillion rider Kundan Kumar sustained grievous injuries.
Further it was held that the rider of the motor cycle and
pillion riders were riding the motor cycle without wearing
helmet and the rider of the motor cycle was not having valid
driving licence at the time of the accident.
12. The 2nd respondent contended and argued that
accident has been taken place due to the contributory
negligence of the deceased and contended that 3 persons
were riding on the two wheeler is unlawful and thereby
deceased violated the provision of Section 128 of the motor
vehicle Act and none of them were wearing helmets at the
10 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021
time of the accident and as such accident has been taken
place due to the contributory negligence of the deceased and
hence respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation
to the petitioners.
13. In this regard-The Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil
Appeal No.79/2020 (Mohammed Siddiqui & Anr., v.
National Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.), has held thus:
The fact that the deceased was riding on a motor
cycle along with the driver and another, may not,
by itself, without anything more, make him guilty
of contributory negligence. At the most it would
make him guilty of being a party to the violation of
the law. Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, imposes a restriction on the driver of a two
wheeled motor cycle, not to carry more than one
person on the motor cycle. Section 194C inserted
by the Amendment Act 32 of 2019, prescribes a
penalty for violation of safety measures for motor
cycle drivers and pillion riders. Therefore, the fact
that a person was a pillion rider on a motor cycle
along with the driver and one more person on the
pillion, may be a violation of the law. But such
violation by itself, without anything more, cannot
lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless
it is established that his very act of riding along
with two others, contributed either to the accident
or to the impact of the accident upon the victim.
There must either be a causal connection between
the violation and the accident or a causal
connection between the violation and the impact of
the accident upon the victim. It may so happen at
times, that the accident could have been averted or
11 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021the injuries sustained could have been of a lesser
degree, if there had been no violation of the law by
the victim. What could otherwise have resulted in a
simple injury, might have resulted in a grievous
injury or even death due to the violation of the law
by the victim. It is in such cases, where, but for the
violation of the law, either the accident could have
been averted or the impact could have been
minimized, that the principle of contributory
negligence could be invoked. It is not the case of
the insurer that the accident itself occurred as a
result of three persons riding on a motor cycle. It is
not even the case of the insurer that the accident
would have been averted, if three persons were not
riding on the motor cycle.
14. Though respondent No.2 has contended that it is a
case of triple riding and the entire mishap has taken place
solely on the account of rider of motorcycle but respondent
No.2 has failed to prove that only due to triple riding they had
lost the balance because of which they hit the lorry and the
accident had occurred. In the absence of any evidence to
show the wrongful act on the part of third party contributed
to the accident or to the nature of injuries sustained,
petitioners cannot be held liable for triple riding which was
the cause of accident nor can establish that there was
contributory negligence on the part of petitioners. The rider of
motorcycle, if it is demonstrated, lost control of motorcycle,
12 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021
he/she was not able to balance the vehicle or because of such
contravention he dashed against the vehicle which resulted in
accident, then the question of exact breach of duty resulted
in negligence would be analyzed. Violation of Section 128 of
MV Act and relevant rules would be attracted to punitive
action but that itself would not result in breach of terms &
conditions of insurance policy and the insurance company
cannot escape its liability to pay compensation. Though
Respondent No.2 contended that there was negligence on the
part of pillion rider, no documents are produced to
substantiate the same. PW1 being eyewitness to the accident
has testified that the occupants of motorcycle were wearing
helmets at the time of accident and the same is not diluted in
his cross-examination.
15. Apart from this, on perusal of spot mahazar, it
clearly shows that the spot of accident is a
Tirumalashettyhalli-Devalapura road width of 20 feet tar road
running from east to west and there is a white line in the
middle of the road and also at the edge of the road and
accident has been taken place in the middle of the road.
13 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021
Further it is stated in the ex-P3 there is tire marks on the tar
road and broken pieces of the vehicles were on the edge of the
road. Further as per Ex-P3 it is clearly stated that the handle
of the motor cycle has been got bend due to the hit by right
side of the lorry.
16. Ex-P4 MV report clearly shows that the accident has
been taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the
lorry bearing reg.No.KA-25-A-2414. Apart from all these, it is
pertinent to note here that respondent has not examined the
driver of the lorry to disprove the evidence of the PW-1 eye
witness. The non examination of the driver of the offending
vehicle and also non-examination of the driver of lorry
bearing reg.No.KA-53-D-7477 is fatal to the case of the
respondents.
17. At this juncture, It is necessary to apply the
citation reported in AIR 2011 SC 1504 between
Parmeshwari -vs- Amir Chand & Ors – wherein it has been
held that –
“In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly
taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary
to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident
14 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may
not be possible to be done by the claimants. The
claimants were merely to establish their case on the
touchstone of preponderance of probability. The
standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not
have been applied.”
18. Thus, the oral evidence of PW-1 and 2 discussed with the
above documentary evidence are sufficient for the purpose of
the actionable claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. Mere
taking of defence is not sufficient to dislodge the testimony of
other side, which has no sanctity in the eyes of Law.
19. Under such circumstances the evidence of PW.1 and
2 which is supported by police documents has to be accepted.
Consequently I hold that the accident is proved to have been
caused due to the actionable negligence of the driver of
offending vehicle.
20. In addenda, in a claim for compensation u/s 166
of M.V Act, 1988, the claimant has to prove the incident only
on preponderance of probabilities and proof beyond
reasonable doubt is not required as held by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in ‘MANGALA RAM VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY reported in (2018) 5 SCC 656. With this
15 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021
observation issue No.1 in both cases is answered as ‘In the
Affirmative’.
21. Issue No.2 in MVC No.3628/2021 :
As already discussed above the petitioner has proved
that the accident took place due to the actionable negligence
of the driver of lorry bearing reg.No.KA-53-D-7477. Therefore
the petitioner is entitled for compensation.
22. AGE, AVOCATION AND INCOME : So far as the age
of petitioner is concerned, the petitioner contended that at
the time of accident he was aged 25 years. The petitioner has
produced the Aadhar card as per Ex.P.12, it disclose the date
of birth of the petitioner as 9-8-1995 and the accident took
place on 23-3-2021. So, as on the date of accident the
petitioner was aged 25 years. The petitioner has deposed
that prior to the accident he was employee at Amazon
company and earning Rs.20,000/-p.m. and lost the earnings.
The petitioner has not produced any document to prove his
avocation and income. In the absence of proof taking into
consideration the date of accident, age of the petitioner and
16 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021
nature of his work, if his income is assessed at Rs.15,000/-
p.m, it would meet the ends of justice.
23. LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME DUE TO DISABILITY:-
As per the medical records i.e., case record of the petitioner
reveals that petitioner had sustained the following injuries :
i.e., (1) fracture of both bones of right leg (2) laceration over
right knee (3) multiple abrasion over face and hands. The
said injury No.1 is described as grievous injury and injury
No.2 and 3 are described as simple in nature. The Ex-P11
discharge summary of RKB Sanjeevini hospital reveals that
petitioner took treatment as inpatient from 11-5-2021 to 14-
5-2021 for total period of 4 days and was diagnosed
comminuted segmental fracture right tibia with LRS in situ.
Further from discharge summary, it reveals that petitioner
undergone LRS removal, CRIF with MDNC expert tibial nail
done under SA on 17-5-2021.
24. It is the specific case of the petitioner that owing to
the accidental injuries she has become disabled and has lost
his earning capacity. Therefore he got examined Dr.Nagaraj
17 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021
B.N. as PW-3 who has stated that petitioner had sustained
injuries i.e., communited segmental fracture of the right
tibia, lacerated wound over the right knee with impending
compartment syndrome. PW-3 stated that petitioner took
treatment at Aaxis hospital with LRS fixation and discharged
on 6-4-2021, later admitted to RKB Sanjeevini hospital on
11-5-2021 and underwent LRS removal and CRIF with expert
tibial nail on 14-5-2021 and discharged on 17-5-2021. PW-3
assessed the physical disability of right lower limb at 48%
and wholebody physical disability at 16%. PW-3 has
produced Ex-P20 clinical notes and ex-P21-x-ray.
25. The petitioner got examined Dr.Kiran J.-medical
officer at Aaxis hospital, Bangalore as PW-4 who has stated
in his affidavit that petitioner took treatment as inpatient in
their hospital from 23-3-2021 to 6-4-2021.
26. From the careful examination of the medical
records, it is seen that PW.3 has assessed the disability on
the higher side. Be that as it may, the law is well settled that
it is the impact of the physical disability on the particular
18 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021
avocation of the petitioner which is relevant for the purpose of
assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future
income as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajkumar’s case
reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343. With regard to the disability
in RTA cases, the same has to be assessed on the principles
laid down in 2011(1) Supreme Court cases 343 in between
Rajkumar -vs- Ajay Kumar and Another.
27. Considering the nature of injuries, age of petitioner,
occupation of petitioner, line of treatment and on
appreciation of the clinical findings noted by the doctor, the
possibility of the fact that the petitioner was employee at
Amazon company, certainly has to face some difficulty and
disability to carry his avocation. Hence, economical or
functional disability to the extent of 12%, cannot be ruled
out. Therefore, I consider the functional disability of
petitioner at 12%. As per Sarla Verma’s case, the appropriate
multiplier applicable to the age group of 20 to 25 is ’18’. This
Tribunal has already assessed the notional income of the
petitioner at Rs.15,000/-p.m. Hence a sum of Rs.3,88,800/-
(Rs.15,000 X 12 X 18 X 12/100) is awarded under this head.
19 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021
28. PAIN & SUFFERINGS : As per the medical records
the petitioner has sustained the grievous injuries in the
accident and he has sustained severe pain and sufferings
due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident and
petitioner had sustained injuries i.e., (1) fracture of both
bones of right leg (2) laceration over right knee (3) multiple
abrasion over face and hands. The said injury No.1 is
described as grievous injury and injury No.2 and 3 are
described as simple in nature. The Ex-P7 discharge summary
of RKB Sanjeevini hospital as inpatient from 11-5-2021 to
14-5-2021 and in the Aaxis hospital from 23-3-2021 to 6-4-
2021 for total period of 19 days and was diagnosed
comminuted segmental fracture right tibia with LRS in situ.
Further from discharge summary, it reveals that petitioner
undergone LRS removal, CRIF with MDNC expert tibial nail
done under SA on 17-5-2021. Hence petitioner is suffering
from whole physical and mental pain and agony due to the
injuries sustained by him on account of the accidental
injuries. The petitioner being 25 years, certainly undergone
severe pain and mental agony. Looking into the nature of the
20 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021
wounds and age of the petitioner, this Tribunal awards a sum
of Rs.75,000/- under this head.
29. LOSS OF INCOME DURING LAID-UP PERIOD: By
considering the nature of injuries sustained by petitioner and
treatment taken by him and duration of his stay in the RKB
Sanjeevini hospital as inpatient from 11-5-2021 to 14-5-
2021 and in the Aaxis hospital from 23-3-2021 to 6-4-2021
for total period of 19 days and was diagnosed comminuted
segmental fracture right tibia with LRS in situ. Further from
discharge summary, it reveals that petitioner undergone LRS
removal, CRIF with MDNC expert tibial nail done under SA on
17-5-2021. PW-4 stated that petitioner took treatment at
Aaxis hospital, Bangalore as inpatient from 23-3-2021 to 6-
4-2021 total for 15 days. It is quite natural that petitioner
could not have carried out his avocation for at least 5
months. Thus by taking into account the notional income of
the petitioner, this Tribunal awards Rs.75,000/- (15,000 X 5)
under the head loss of income during the laid up period.
21 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021
30. ATTENDANT CHARGES, EXTRA NUTRITIOUS
FOOD & CONVEYANCE CHARGES: Admittedly as per
the materials available on record, petitioner is a resident of
Hosakote Taluk, Bangalore and has taken treatment at RKB
Sanjeevini hospital as inpatient from 11-5-2021 to 14-5-
2021 and in the Aaxis hospital from 23-3-2021 to 6-4-2021
for total period of 19 days and certainly, it cannot be
disputed that petitioner is dependent on the others and
during the course of treatment, the petitioner might have
spent more amount towards attendant charges, conveyance,
extra nutritious food etc. Hence a sum of Rs.35,000/- under
this head.
31. LOSS OF FUTURE AMENITIES AND
HAPPINESS : The disability referred above would have
necessarily caused physical deformity with which the
petitioner has to live the rest of his life. Thereby the petitioner
would obviously face depression, anxiety, disappointment &
frustration and also suffer discomfort in enjoying the normal
pleasures & joys of human life. Hence a sum of Rs.25,000/-
is awarded under this head.
22 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021
32. MEDICAL EXPENSES: As regard to claim of
medical expenses, the petitioner got marked the medical bills
Ex-P9 for Rs.5,85,055/- and Ex-P10-prescriptions. Upon
considering the above bills and injuries sustained by the
petitioner in the accident, the resultant disability suffered by
him due to such injuries, I proceed to award Rs.5,85,055/-
under the head of medical expenses.
33. The calculation table stands as follows :
1 Loss of future
income due to : 3,88,800/-
disability
2 Pain & sufferings 4.
: 75,000/-
3 Loss of income
during laid-up
period : 75,000/-
4 Attendant charges, : 35,000/-
extra nutritious food
&conveyance
charges
5 Loss of future : 25,000/-
amenities &
happiness
6 Medical expenses : 5,85,055/-
Total 11,83,855/-
23 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021
Hence petitioner is entitle for compensation of
Rs.11,83,855/-.
34. Issue No.2 in MVC No. 3627/2021 :
The petitioner No.1 has filed affidavit in lieu of his chief-
examination and deposed that he is the father, petitioner
No.2 is the mother of the deceased Mithun Kumar. From Ex-
P15 to 17 Adhaar cards, it reveals that petitioner No.1 is the
father and petitioner No.2 is the mother of the deceased
Mithun Kumar. Therefore I can safely hold that the said
petitioners No.1 and 2 are the legal representatives.
35. On perusal of Ex.P.15, the date of birth of the
deceased is 23-3-2021 as on the date of the accident,
deceased was 21 years. Therefore the appropriate multiplier
as per Sarla Verma’s case for the said age group of 20-25 is
’18’. The petitioners contended that deceased was working at
Flipkart and earning Rs.20,000/-p.m. In support of their
contentions, the petitioners have produced Ex-P18 ID card.
Further petitioners have examined one Himamshu Kumar-
Legal officer at Bank of Baroda, Bangalore as PW-5 who has
produced Ex-P25-authorisation letter, Ex-P26-account
24 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021
statement. On perusal of which, it reveals that deceased
Mithun Kumar was drawing the salary of Rs.18,341/- in the
month of December 2020, but as per Ex-P26 the deceased
was drawing salary of Rs.2,510/- in January 2021 and he
has not drawn any salary in the month of February. But
there is no reference with regard to the drawing of the salary
in the month of February 2021, even the petitioners have not
stated any reasons for the same. The petitioners have not
produced any document to show that as on the date of
accident, deceased was still working in the said company.
Therefore, the income of the deceased has to be taken into
consideration as notional income. In the absence of proof
taking into consideration the date of accident, age of the
deceased at the time of accident and nature of his work, if his
income is assessed at Rs.15,000/- p.m, it would meet the
ends of justice. Hence, the annual income of the deceased will
be considered as Rs.15,000/- x 12 =Rs.1,80,000/-.
36. In a decision reported in 2018 ACJ 5 (Hem raj V/s
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd & others), the Hon’ble Apex
Court held that addition on account of future prospects is
25 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021
admissible where minimum income is determined on
guesswork in the absence of proof of income. In the case on
hand the deceased was aged 21 years. As per dictum of
Hon’ble Apex Court in AIR 2017 SCC 5157, 50% of income
is to be added towards future prospects in case of self
employed. 50% of Rs.15,000/- works out to Rs.7,500/-.
Therefore the total income comes to Rs.22,500/-
(15,000+7500). Admittedly, the deceased was bachelor and as
such in view of the proposition of Law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case, half of his
income needs to be deducted towards personal & living
expenses. 1/2 of Rs.22,500/- works out to Rs.11,250/-.
Income for consideration is Rs.11250/- (22,500- 11250).
Annual income works out to Rs.1,35,000/- (11,250 X 12).
Appropriate multiplier is ’18’. Thus loss of dependency works
out to Rs.24,30,000/- (1,35,000 X 18).
37. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM: In view of the ratio laid by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2021) 11 SCC 780 between
United India Insurance Company Limited V/s. Satinder Kaur
alias Satwinder Kaur and others, each of the claimants are
26 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021
entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- (in view of the Pranay Sethi
case, 10% of Rs.40,000/- has to be enhanced for every 3
years from 2017) on account of loss of spousal consortium,
parental consortium and loss of love & affection.
38. LOSS OF ESTATE: Petitioners are entitled for
Rs.18,150/- ( in view of the Pranay Sethi case, 10% of
Rs.15,000/- has to be enhanced for every 3 years from
2017) towards loss of estate.
39. FUNERAL EXPENSES: Petitioners are entitled for
Rs.18,150/- ( in view of the Pranay Sethi case, 10% of
Rs.15,000/- has to be enhanced for every 3 years from
2017) towards funeral expenses.
40. The calculation table stands as follows :
1 Loss of 24,30,000-00
Dependency
2 Loss of 96,800-00
Consortium
3 Loss of Estate 18,150-00
4 Funeral 18,150-00
Expenses
Total 25,63,100=00
27 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021Hence, petitioners are entitle for compensation of
Rs.25,63,100/-.
41. With this observation issue No.2 in this case is
answered as ‘In the Affirmative’ and issue No.3 is
answered as ‘Partly in the Affirmative.
42. REGARDING INTEREST & LIABILITY: Having regard
to the nature of the claim and current bank rate of interest,
this Tribunal is of the view that if interest at the rate of 6%
p.a, is awarded it would meet the ends of justice.
43. There is no dispute with regard to the issuance of
insurance policy and its validity as on the date of accident.
The respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle
and respondent No.2 being the insurer thereof are jointly &
severally liable to pay the aforesaid award amount to the
petitioner together with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of
claim petition till realization of the entire amount. However
the respondent No.2 being the insurer is primarily liable to
satisfy the award amount together with interest within one
month from the date of this order. Accordingly issue No.2 is
28 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021
answered as ‘In the Affirmative’ and issue No.3 is answered
as ‘Party in the affirmative’.
44. ISSUE NO.3 in MVC No.3628/2021 and ISSUE
No.4 in MVC No.3627/2021 : In view of the discussion
made supra, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following :
-: O R D E R :-
The petitions filed under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicle’s Act 1988, are hereby partly allowed with
costs in the following terms:
The petitioner in MVC No.3628/2021 is
entitle for compensation of Rs.11,83,855/- and in
MVC No.3627/2021 petitioners are entitled for
compensation of Rs.25,63,100/- with interest at
the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition
till realization of the entire award amount.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay and
directed to deposit the compensation amount
within a period of one month from the date of
award.
After deposit of the compensation amount to
the petitioner in MVC No.3628/2021, 40% shall
be deposited in his name in any Nationalized or
Scheduled Bank of his choice for a period of 3
29 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021years and the remaining 60% shall be released to
him through E-payment on proper identification
and verification. However the said petitioner is at
liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued
on his deposit amount from time to time.
On deposit together with interest, the
claimants in MVC No.3627/2021 are entitled for
the compensation amount by way of
apportionment as follows :
Petitioner No.1 30- % Petitioner No.2 70- %
Out of the share amount of Petitioner No.1
and 2 a sum equal to 40% shall be deposited in
their respective names in any Nationalized or
Scheduled Bank of their choice for a period of 3
years and the remaining 60% shall be released to
them through E-payment on proper identification
and verification. However the said petitioner No.1
and 2 are at liberty to withdraw the periodical
interest accrued on their deposit amount from time
to time.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- in each
case.
Draw an award accordingly.
30 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021
The original judgment shall be kept in MVC
No.3628/2021 & copy thereof may be maintained in
MVC No.3627/2021 for reference.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, after her typing,
corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court this the
18th day of June, 2025).
(CHETANA S.F.)
IV ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners:
PW1 : Kundan Kumar PW2 : Santhosh Sah PW3 : Dr.Nagaraj B.N. PW4 : Dr.Kiran J. PW5 : Himamshu kumar
List of documents marked on behalf of petitioners:
Ex.P1 : Copy of FIR
Ex.P2 : Copy of complaint
Ex.P3 : Spot and seizure mahazar
Ex.P4 : Motor vehicle report
Ex.P5 : Wound certificate
31 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021
Ex.P6 : Charge sheet
Ex.P7 : Discharge summary
Ex.P8 : OPD sheets
Ex.P9 : 64 medical bills
Ex.P10 : Medical prescriptions
Ex.P11 : Six x-rays
Ex.P12 : Aadhaar card
Ex.P13 : Inquest report
Ex.P14 : PM report
Ex.P15 to 17 : Aadhaar card
Ex.P18 : ID card
Ex.P19 : PUC marks card
Ex.P20 : Clinical notes
Ex.P21 : X-ray
Ex.P22 : Authorisation letter
Ex.P23 : MLC carbon copy
Ex.P24 : Case sheet
Ex.P25 : Authorisation letter
Ex.P26 : Account statement
List of witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:-
NIL
List of documents marked on behalf of respondents:-
NIL
(CHETANA S.F.)
IV ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU.
32 MVC.NO.3628/2021 c/w 3627/2021