Bangalore District Court
Subbamma vs Bangalore Metropolitan Transport … on 17 February, 2025
KABC020116282022
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 Additional Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.1929/2022
Dated this 17th day of February, 2025
Petitioners: 1. Subbamma W/o Nagaraja C.,
Aged about 46 years,
2. Nagaraja C. S/o Chikkabairappa,
Aged about 62 years,
Both are residing at No.14/1,
Somalapura village,
Devanagundhi Post,
Anugondanahalli Hobli,
Hosakote Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District - 560067.
(Sri Bayya Reddy T.S., Advocate)
V/s
Respondents: 1. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport
Corporation (BMTC),
2 MVC No.1929/2022
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Double Road, Shanti Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 027.
(Owner of BMTC Bus bearing
No.KA-57-F-1235)
(Smt. S. Hema, Advocate)
2. B. S. Jagdish S/o Shankar Reddy,
Aged about 45 years,
No.256, Balagere Village,
Panathur Post, Bengaluru-560 087.
(Owner of BBMP Lorry bearing
No.KA-53-B-1179)
(Sri A. C. Sathisha, Advocate)
3. The Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
44/45, Leo Shopping Complex,
4th Floor, Residency Road Cross,
Bengaluru - 560 025.
(Policy No.421900/13/2022/4774,
valid from 01-10-2021 to 30-09-
2022)
(Smt. M.R. Mamatha, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-
3 MVC No.1929/2022
from the respondents, on account of death of Chandra
Mohan S.N., who is son of petitioners No.1 and 2, in a road
traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 30-10-2021 at about 6.45 p.m., the deceased
Chandramohan S.N., was riding the motorcycle bearing
No.KA-53-HF-2117 on Varthur Tank Bund Main road, from
Whitefield to Varthur, behind 500 meter from Duggalamma
Temple, near Banyan Tree. At that time, a BMTC Bus bearing
Reg. No.KA-57-F-1235, driven by its driver in high speed, in
rash and negligent manner, without following traffic rules
and regulations, came from opposite direction and dashed to
the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to the said impact the
deceased fell down on the road. At that time, the driver of
BBMP Lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-53-B-1179 going adjacent to
the deceased vehicle, drove the same in high speed, in rash
and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and
ran over on the deceased. As a result the deceased died on
4 MVC No.1929/2022the spot. Earlier to the accident, the deceased was working as
helper at Sri Nidhi Paints and Hardware, Whitefield,
Bengaluru and was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- 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 Whitefield Traffic Police
have registered the case against the drivers of the BMTC Bus
bearing No.KA-57-F-1235 and BBMP lorry bearing No.KA-53-B-
1179 for the offences punishable under Section 279 and
304(A) of I.P.C. The respondent No.1 is the owner of the BMTC
Bus bearing No.KA-57-F-1235 and respondent No.2 is the
owner and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the
BBMP lorry bearing No.KA-53-B-1179. 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.30,00,000/- with interest at the rate of
18% per annum.
5 MVC No.1929/2022
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the
respondents No.1 to 3 have appeared through their counsel.
The respondents No.1 and 3 have filed their separate written
statements. Whereas, the respondent No.2 did not choose
to file his written statement.
4. The respondent No.1 in its written statement has
denied all the allegations made in the petition. Further, it has
contended that, on 30-10-2021 at about 6.40 p.m., one
Chandrappa the driver of the BMTC Bus bearing No.KA-57-F-
1235 was driving the same slowly and cautiously, proceeding
on Anekal to Kadugodi route. While so proceeding, on
Varthur Lake Bund, where the road is narrow and curve, the
BBMP lorry bearing No.KA-53-B-1179 was coming from
opposite direction and the two-wheeler bearing No.KA-53-HF-
2117, ridden by the deceased, was behind BBMP lorry. The
deceased without observing the movement of the vehicles
suddenly overtook BBMP lorry and when he saw the vehicle
coming from opposite side, he was unable to move and
6 MVC No.1929/2022
control his vehicle and fell down from the two-wheeler and
came under the lorry wheels, sustained grievous injuries and
died in the accident. The bus is no way involved in the
accident. The lorry driver was totally negligent, as he did not
avoid the accident. The liability if any may be fixed on the
owner of the lorry and the insurer. The driver of the lorry ran
away from the spot, leaving the vehicle on the road. The
police instead of fixing the lorry driver for the accident has
foisted false case against the respondent driver for the
alleged offence under Section 304(A) of IPC. The accident has
occurred due to sheer negligence of the driver of the BBMP
lorry and deceased/rider of the two-wheeler. The driver and
conductor of the respondent bus are no way responsible for
the accident. It has denied the age, income and avocation of
the deceased. Further it is contended that, the compensation
claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. For the above
denials and contentions, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
7 MVC No.1929/2022
5. Whereas the respondent No.3 in its written statement
has denied all the allegations made against it in the petition.
It has admitted the issuance of insurance policy bearing
No.421900/13/2022/4774 in respect of BBMP lorry bearing
No.KA-53-B-1179 in favour of respondent No.2 and its validity
as on the date of accident. It has denied the age, income and
avocation of the deceased. The petition is bad for non-joinder
of necessary party, as the driver of the BBMP lorry bearing
No.KA-53-B-1179 is not made as party to the proceedings. It
has contended that, the petition is bad for non compliance of
provisions under Sections 134(C) and 158(6) of Motor Vehicles
Act. It has sought permission to contest even on behalf of
respondent No.2, as per Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles
Act. Further it is contended that, the compensation claimed is
highly excessive and exorbitant. For the above denials and
contentions, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the
following issues are framed:
8 MVC No.1929/2022
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that,
deceased Chandramohan S.N., has
succumbed to the injuries sustained in
road traffic accident, alleged to have
been occurred on 30-10-2021 at about
6.45 p.m., on Varthuru Kodi Main Road,
near Duggalamma Temple, Varthuru,
Bengaluru, due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the
BMTC Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-57-F-
1235 and BBMP lorry bearing Reg.
No.KA-53-B-1179 ?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to
compensation? If so, what is the
quantum and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?
7. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.2 has
got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 9 documents
as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. On the other hand, the respondent No.1
has examined its driver as R.W.1 and got marked one
9 MVC No.1929/2022
document as Ex.R.1. The respondent No.3 has examined its
Assistant Manager as R.W.2 and the Police Inspector of
Whitefield Traffic Police Station as R.W.3 and got marked
total 9 documents as Ex.R.2 to 10. Whereas, the respondent
No.2 has not adduced any evidence on his behalf.
8. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and
perused the entire material placed on record.
9. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative
Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative
Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the
following:
REASONS
10. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioners that, on
30-10-2021 at about 6.45 p.m., when the deceased
Chandramohan S.N., was riding the motorcycle bearing
No.KA-53-HF-2117 on Varthur Tank Bund Main road, from
Whitefield to Varthur, behind 500 meter from Duggalamma
10 MVC No.1929/2022
Temple, near Banyan Tree, the driver of offending BMTC Bus
bearing Reg. No.KA-57-F-1235, drove the same in high
speed, in rash and negligent manner, without following
traffic rules and regulations and dashed to the oncoming
motorcycle of the deceased. Due to the said impact the
deceased fell down on the road. At that time, the driver of
BBMP Lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-53-B-1179 going adjacent to
the deceased vehicle, drove the same in high speed, in rash
and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules
and ran over on the deceased, resulting in his death on the
spot. Further it is contended that, earlier to the accident, the
deceased was working as helper at Sri Nidhi Paints and
Hardware, Whitefield, Bengaluru and was earning a sum of
Rs.25,000/- 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.
11. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.2 has
got examined himself as P.W.1 by filing examination-in-chief
11 MVC No.1929/2022
affidavit, wherein he has reiterated the entire averments
made in the petition. Further, in support of their oral
evidence, the petitioners have got marked total 9
documents as Ex.P.1 to 9. Out of the said documents, Ex.P.1
is true copy of F.I.R., Ex.P.2 is true copy of post-mortem
report, Ex.P.3 is true copy of Motor Vehicle Accident report,
Ex.P.4 are true copy of Aadhar cards (total 3), Ex.P.5 is true
copy of charge-sheet, Ex.P.6 is true copy of sketch, Ex.P.7 is
true copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P.8 is true copy of vehicle
seizure mahazar and Ex.P.9 is true copy of first information
statement.
12. On meticulously going through the police documents
marked as Ex.P.1 to 3 and 5 to 9, prima-facia it reveals that,
the said accident has occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of BMTC Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-57-F-
1235 and BBMP lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-53-B-1179. The
said accident has taken place due to dashing of BMTC Bus
bearing Reg. No.KA-57-F-1235 to the oncoming motorcycle
12 MVC No.1929/2022
of the deceased and due to said impact the deceased has fell
down on the road, at that time the driver of BBMP Lorry
bearing Reg. No.KA-53-B-1179, which was proceeding
adjacent to the deceased motorcycle in rash and negligent
manner, without observing the traffic rules, wit 30-10-2021
at about 6.45 p.m., the deceased Chandramohan S.N., was
riding the motorcycle bearing No.KA-53-HF-2117 on Varthur
Tank Bund Main road, from Whitefield to Varthur, behind
500 meter from Duggalamma Temple, near Banyan Tree. At
that time, a BMTC Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-57-F-1235, driven
by its driver in high speed, in rash and negligent manner,
without following traffic rules and regulations, came from
opposite direction and dashed to the motorcycle of the
deceased. Due to the said impact the deceased fell down on
the road and the BBMP Lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-53-B-1179
which going adjacent to the deceased motorcycle, driven by
its drove in high speed, in rash and negligent manner, ran
over the deceased and resulted in the death of
13 MVC No.1929/2022
Chandramohan S.N., on the spot. The investigation officer in
his final report/charge-sheet, which is marked as Ex.P.5, has
clearly stated that, the said accident has occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of BMTC Bus bearing
Reg. No.KA-57-F-1235 and BBMP lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-
53-B-1179.
13. At the outset, is it pertinent to note that, in the present
case, the date, time and place of accident, involvement of
the offending BMTC Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-57-F-1235 and
BBMP lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-53-B-1179 in the said
accident, issuance of insurance policy in favour of the
respondent No.2 with respect to offending BBMP lorry
bearing No.KA-53-B-1179 and its validity as on the date of
accident, are not in dispute. Further, the above oral and
documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners
has remained undisputed by the owner of offending BBMP
lorry bearing No.KA-53-B-1179 i.e. Respondent No.2, as he
did not choose to file his written statement and contest the
14 MVC No.1929/2022
case of the petitioners. Whereas, the respondent No.1
owner of the BMTC bus and respondent No.3/insurer of
BBMP lorry, have specifically denied the above averred facts
and circumstances of the accident and taken specific
defence that, there is no negligence on the part of their
respective drivers and the said accident has taken place due
to rash and negligent riding on the part of deceased himself,
as the deceased without observing the movement of the
vehicles suddenly overtook BBMP lorry and when he saw the
vehicle coming from opposite side, he was unable to control
his vehicle and fell down from the two-wheeler and came
under the lorry wheels and sustained grievous injuries and
died. But, the respondent No.1 & 3 have failed to establish
the said contentions. Except the self serving statements of
R.W.1, who is the driver of the BMTC bus and R.W.2, who is
the representative/Assistant Manager of respondent No.3
insurance company, there is absolutely no other
corroborative oral or documentary evidence placed on
15 MVC No.1929/2022
record by the respondent No.1 & 3 to establish the above
contentions. There is absolutely no evidence on record to
show that, the accident in question has taken place due to
the rash and negligent riding on the deceased himself and
there was no fault on the part of their respective driver. On
the other hand, the oral and documentary evidence placed
on record by the petitioners clearly establishes that, the
accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the drivers of BMTC Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-57-F-1235 and
BBMP lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-53-B-1179 and the deceased
Chandramohan S.N., has succumbed to grievous injuries
sustained in the said accident. The same has been deposed
by the R.W.3, who is none other than the investigation
officer whose has conducted the investigation in the case
and foisted charge-sheet against the drivers of offending
vehicles. Though, the learned counsel for respondent No.1
and 3 have cross-examined P.W.1 in length, nothing worth
has been elicited from his mouth which creates doubt on the
16 MVC No.1929/2022
veracity of his evidence. Further, the P.W.1 has unequivocally
denied the suggestions made in his cross-examination that,
the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent riding
of the deceased himself, as the deceased without observing
the movement of the vehicles suddenly overtook BBMP lorry
and when he saw the vehicle coming from opposite side, he
was unable to control his vehicle and fell down from the
two-wheeler and came under the lorry wheels, sustained
grievous injuries and died.
14. Further, the Ex.P.6 sketch and Ex.P.7 spot mahazer
clearly goes to show that, the said accident has taken place
on the middle of 29 feet wide Varthur-Kodi main road, near
Duggalamma Temple, Varthuru, Bengaluru, due to dashing
of offending BMTC Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-57-F-1235 to the
oncoming motorcycle of the deceased and due to ran over
of BBMP lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-53-B-1179 over the body
of deceased. Further it is pertinent to note, as per Ex.P.3
Motor Vehicle Accident Report, the accident is not caused
17 MVC No.1929/2022
due to any mechanical defects in the vehicles involved in the
accident. When the accident has not taken place due to the
any mechanical defects in the offending vehicles and there
was no negligence on the part of the deceased, then in the
present facts and circumstances of the case, it can be
presumed that, the said accident had occurred due to
negligence on the part of the drivers of BMTC Bus bearing
Reg. No.KA-57-F-1235 and BBMP lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-
53-B-1179. There is absolutely no rebuttal evidence placed
on record by the respondents No.1 and 3 to disprove the
case of the petitioners to show that, the said accident has
taken place due to sole rash and negligent riding of the
deceased and there was no fault on the part of the drivers of
offending BMTC Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-57-F-1235 and
BBMP lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-53-B-1179. Even nothing has
been brough out in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to show
that, the said accident has occurred due to rash and
18 MVC No.1929/2022
negligent riding of the deceased himself or there was any
contributory negligence on his part in the cause of accident.
15. Further, the Ex.P.2 Post-mortem report, clearly speaks
that, the deceased Chandramohan S.N., has died due to
shock and hemorrhage, as a result of injuries to head and
pelvis sustained in the road traffic accident. The
investigation officer in his final report/charge-sheet, which is
marked as Ex.P.5, has clearly stated that, the said accident
has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers
of BMTC Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-57-F-1235 and BBMP lorry
bearing Reg. No.KA-53-B-1179. Admittedly, the said final
report/charge-sheet has not been challenged by the owners
or by the drivers of the offending BMTC Bus and BBMP lorry.
In such circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the
final report filed by the investigation officer and other police
records, with regard to date, time and place of accident,
involvement of the offending BMTC Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-
57-F-1235 and BBMP lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-53-B-1179 in
19 MVC No.1929/2022
the accident, rash and negligent driving of the drivers of
offending vehicles, injuries caused to deceased
Chandramohan S.N., in the said accident and the cause of
his death.
16. The evidence on record clearly establishes that, there
is equal contributory negligence on the part of the driver of
offending BMTC Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-57-F-1235 and the
driver of BBMP lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-53-B-1179 in the
cause of accident. If the driver of offending BMTC Bus
bearing No.KA-57-F-1235 had taken care and if he had not
driven his vehicle in rash and negligent manner, the said bus
would not have come in contact with the motorcycle of the
deceased and the deceased would not have fell down and
the offending lorry bearing No.KA-53-B-1179 would not have
ran over his body. Likewise, if the driver of offending lorry
bearing No.KA-53-B-1179 had been diligent and drove his
vehicle in moderate speed, he would have immediately
20 MVC No.1929/2022
stopped his vehicle by applying break and the said vehicle
would not have ran over the body of the deceased, which
has resulted in his death. Therefore, this Court is of the
opinion that, the owner of BMTC Bus bearing No.KA-57-F-
1235 and the owner of BBMP lorry bearing No.KA-53-B-1179
have contributed equally in the cause of accident and they
are equally liable to compensate for the damage caused by
their respective vehicles.
17. 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.”
21 MVC No.1929/2022
18. 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
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.”
19. Therefore, in the light of observations made in the
above cited decisions and for the reasons stated above, this
Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioners have
successfully proved through cogent and corroborative
evidence that, the deceased Chandramohan S.N., has
succumbed to the injuries sustained in motor vehicle
accident, occurred on 30-10-2021 at about 6.45 p.m., on
Varthuru-Kodi main road, near Duggalamma Temple,
Varthuru, Bengaluru, due to rash and negligent driving of
the drivers of BMTC Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-57-F-1235 and
22 MVC No.1929/2022
BBMP lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-53-B-1179. Hence, I answer
Issue No.1 in Affirmative.
20. Issue No.2: While answering above issue, for the
reasons stated therein, this Court has come to conclusion
that, the petitioners have successfully proved through
cogent and corroborative evidence that, the alleged accident
has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the
drivers of BMTC Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-57-F-1235 and
BBMP lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-53-B-1179 and deceased
Chandramohan S.N., has succumbed to grievous injuries
sustained in the said accident. 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 and Aadhar card of the deceased,
which are marked as Ex.P.4. The said documents clearly
goes to show that, the petitioners No.1 and 2 are the mother
and father of the deceased Chandramohan S.N. On the
23 MVC No.1929/2022
other hand, the relationship of the petitioners with the
deceased Chandramohan S.N., is not disputed by the
respondent No.1 and 3. In such circumstances, there is no
impediment to believe the above documents produced by
the petitioners and hold that, the petitioners are the legal
representatives of deceased Chandramohan S.N.
21. 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
24 MVC No.1929/2022
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
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).
As observed by this Court in Custodian of
Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino vs.
Nalini Bai Naique [1989 Supp (2) SCC 275, the
definition contained in Section 2(11) CPC is
inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is
not confined to legal heirs only. Instead it
stipulates that, a person who may or may not
be legal heir competent to inherit the property
of the deceased can represent the estate of the
deceased person. It includes heirs as well as
persons who represent the estate even without
title either as executors or administrators in
possession of the estate of the deceased. All
such persons would be covered by the
expression “legal representative”. As observed
in Gujarat SRTC vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai
[(1987) 3 SCC 234 a legal representative is one
who suffers on account of death of a person
due to a motor vehicle accident and need not
25 MVC No.1929/2022
necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and
child.
In Manjuri Bera (supra), in paragraph 15
of the said decision, while adverting to the
provisions of Section 140 of the Act, the Court
observed that even if there is no loss of
dependency, the claimant, if he was a legal
representative, will be entitled to
compensation. In the concurring judgment of
Justice S. H. Kapadia, as His Lordship then was,
it is observed that there is distinction between
“right to apply for compensation” and
“entitlement to compensation”. The
compensation constitutes part of the estate of
the deceased. As a result, the legal
representative of the deceased would inherit
the estate. Indeed, in that case, the Court was
dealing with the case of a married daughter of
the deceased and the efficacy of Section 140 of
the Act. Nevertheless, the principle underlying
the exposition in this decision would clearly
come to the aid of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2
(claimants) even though they are major sons of
the deceased and also earning.
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.”
26 MVC No.1929/2022
22. 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
deceased and other conventional heads are to be
ascertained.
23. The compensation towards loss of dependency: The
oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the
petitioners clearly establishes that, the petitioners No.1 and
2 being the mother and father of deceased Chandramohan
S.N., are legal representatives of the deceased and they
were depending on the income of the deceased. Hence, they
are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of
dependency. In order to calculate the loss of dependency,
27 MVC No.1929/2022
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 21 years. To substantiate the same, the
petitioners have produced the Aadhar card of deceased
Chandramohan S.N., which is marked as Ex.P.4, wherein the
date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 31-03-1999.
Admittedly, the accident has taken place on 30-10-2021.
Therefore, as on the date of accident the age of the
deceased was about 23 years. The petitioners have stated
that, as on the date of accident the deceased was hale and
healthy and he was working as Helper at Sri Nidhi Paints and
Hardware, Whitefield, Bengaluru and was earning
Rs.25,000/- per month. But, the petitioners have not
produced any document to show that, the deceased
Chandramohan S.N., was working as Helper at Sri Nidhi
Paints and Hardware, Whitefield, Bengaluru and was
28 MVC No.1929/2022
earning Rs.25,000/- per month. 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
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 2021. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased
as per the guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal
29 MVC No.1929/2022
Services Authority is to be treated as Rs. 15,000/- per month.
Therefore, the annual income of the deceased in the present
case is held as Rs.1,80,000/-.
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
employee as on the date of death. Since the deceased was
aged about 23 years and was not a permanent employee,
the future prospects would be 40% of his income, which
comes to Rs.72,000/- per annum. Therefore, the future
prospects of the deceased is held as Rs.72,000/- per annum.
If this income is added to the notional income, then it comes
to Rs.2,52,000/- per annum. Further, the annual income of
the deceased comes within the exemption limits as per
30 MVC No.1929/2022
iii) The deduction of personal expenses and
calculating the multiplier: The family of the deceased
consist of two persons i.e., petitioners No.1 and 2. The total
number of the dependents of the deceased are two and
admittedly the deceased has died bachelor. Therefore,
deduction towards the personal expenses of deceased is
taken as 50% of the total income, which comes to
Rs.1,26,000/-. After deducting 50% out of total income,
towards the personal expenses of deceased, the annual
income of the deceased is held as Rs.1,26,000/-.
iv) As on the date of death, the age of the deceased
was 23 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 18. Accordingly, the compensation under
the head of loss of dependency is held as Rs.22,68,000/-.
31 MVC No.1929/2022
v) Compensation under conventional heads: In
the present case, admittedly the petitioners No.1 and 2 are
parents of deceased Chandramohan S.N. Hence, the
petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled for compensation under
the head of 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:
a) Loss of estate - Rs. 15,000/-
b) Loss of consortium - Rs. 40,000/-
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 filial consortium comes to Rs.48,000/- each to
32 MVC No.1929/2022
petitioners No.1 and 2 and funeral expenses comes to
Rs.18,000/-.
24. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation under different heads as follows:
Sl. Head of
Amount/Rs
No. Compensation
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 22,68,000-00
2. Loss of filial consortium Rs. 96,000-00
3. Loss of estate Rs. 18,000-00
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000-00
Total Rs. 24,00,000-00
Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that,
the petitioners are entitled for compensation of
Rs.24,00,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum,
from the date of petition till its realization.
25. Liability: Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the
respondent No.1 is the owner of the BMTC Bus bearing
No.KA-57-F-1235 and respondent No.2 is the owner and
33 MVC No.1929/2022
respondent No.3 is the insurer of the
BBMP lorry bearing No.KA-53-B-1179. Further, the evidence
placed on record by the petitioners clearly establishes that,
due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of BMTC Bus
bearing Reg. No.KA-57-F-1235 and BBMP lorry bearing Reg.
No.KA-53-B-1179, the accident in question has taken place
and deceased Chandramohan S.N., has succumbed to the
grievous injuries sustained in the said accident. Further, for
the reasons stated supra, this Court has already held that,
there is equal contributory negligence on the part of the
driver of offending BMTC Bus bearing No.KA-57-F-1235 and
the driver of BBMP lorry bearing No.KA-53-B-1179 in the
cause of accident. In such circumstances, the respondent
No.1 being the owner of offending BMTC Bus bearing
No.KA-57-F-1235 and respondent No.2 being the owner of
offending BBMP lorry bearing No.KA-53-B-1179 are
vicariously liable to compensate for the damage caused by
their respective vehicles. The respondent No.3 being the
34 MVC No.1929/2022
insurer of BBMP lorry bearing No.KA-53-B-1179 has to
indemnify the respondent No.2. Therefore, respondent No.1
is held liable to pay 50% of the compensation amount to the
petitioners and the respondent No.1 and 2 are held jointly
and severally liable to pay the remaining 50% of the
compensation amount to the petitioners. However, the
primary liability is on the respondent No.3 to pay 50% of the
compensation amount to the petitioners. Therefore, for the
above stated reasons, holding that, the petitioner are
entitled for compensation of Rs.24,00,000/-, from the
respondent No.1 and 3, with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of petition till its realization, 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.
35 MVC No.1929/2022
The petitioners are entitled for
compensation of Rs.24,00,000/- (Rupees
twenty four lakh only) with interest at
the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of
petition till realisation.
The respondent No.1 is liable to pay
50% of the above compensation amount
to the petitioners and the respondent
No.2 & 3 are jointly and severally liable
to pay 50% of the above compensation
amount to the petitioners. However, the
primary liability to pay the said 50%
compensation amount is fastened on
respondent No.3 – Insurance Company.
The respondent No.1 & 3 are directed to
pay the above compensation amount to
the petitioners within two months from
the date of this order.
The above compensation amount is
apportioned as follows:
Petitioner No.1 – Mother – 50%
Petitioner No.2 – Father – 50%
36 MVC No.1929/2022Out of total compensation amount
awarded in favour of petitioners No.1
and 2, 40% 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 60% amount with
proportionate interest shall be released
in favour of petitioners No.1 and 2,
through e-payment on proper
identification and verification.
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 17th day of February,
2025)(Mohammed Yunus Athani)
Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners
P.W.1: Nagaraja C. S/o Chikkabairappa
37 MVC No.1929/2022
Documents marked on behalf of petitioners
Ex.P.1: True copy of F.I.R.
Ex.P.2: True copy of Post-mortem Report Ex.P.3: True copy of M.V.A. Report Ex.P.4: True copy of Aadhar cards (total 3) Ex.P.5: True copy of Charge-sheet Ex.P.6: True copy of Sketch Ex.P.7: True copy of Spot Mahazar Ex.P.8: True copy of Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.9: True copy of First Information Statement
Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents
R.W.1: Chandrappa N. S/o Narayanappa
R.W.2: C. S. Venugopal S/o C. Suryanarayana
R.W.3: Putta Obala Reddy S/o Late V. Obaiah
Documents marked on behalf of respondents
Ex.R.1: Copy of First Information Statement dated
04-11-2021
Ex.R.2: Authorization Letter
Ex.R.3: True copy of Statement of Nihar Ranjan Das
Ex.R.4: True copy of Insurance Policy
Ex.R.5: Notarized copy of Department ID Card of
RW3
Ex.R.6 to Statement of Witnesses recorded U/sec.161
8: of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.75/2021 (total 3)
38 MVC No.1929/2022
Ex.R.9: Certificate U/sec. 65B of Indian Evidence
Act
Ex.R.10: C.D.
(Mohammed Yunus Athani)
Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
