Thrilok N vs Bavanasi Subhramanyam on 3 March, 2025

Date:

Bangalore District Court

Thrilok N vs Bavanasi Subhramanyam on 3 March, 2025

SCCH-14                      1                      MVC.5862/2023

KABC020268022023




    BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
            TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE CITY.
                        SCCH-14
          Dated : This the 03rd day of March, 2025

          Present : SRI. D.RAMESH,
                                 B.A.L., LL.B.,
                    MEMBER, MACT,
                    XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
                    COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
                    BENGALURU.

                    MVC No.5862/2023


Petitioners:            1.Sri N. Thrilok
                        S/o. Late. N. Balakrishna
                        Aged about 41 years,

                        2.Sri N. Jaya Pal
                        S/o. Late. N. Balakrishna
                        Aged about 33 years,

                        Both are residing at:
                        No.6-54, Krishnapuram Village,
                        Punganur Mandal,
                        Chittoor District,
 SCCH-14                        2                   MVC.5862/2023

                          Andhra Pradesh-517247.

                          (By Sri T.V. Ramesh, Adv)
                            Vs.

Respondents :             1.Sri Bavanasi Subhramanyam
                           S/o. Bavanasi Thippanna
                           Major,
                           R/o No.2/112
                           Mitturu Village,
                           Chowdepalli Mandal,
                           Chittoor District,
                           Andhra Pradesh-517247.

                            (By Smt. Hemavathi R., Adv)

                            2. The ICICI Lombard
                            General Insurance Company,
                            No.121, 9th Floor,
                            The estate building,
                            Dickson Road,
                            Bengaluru-560 042.

                            (By Smt. Vijayalakshmi C., Adv)

                            JUDGMENT:

The Petitioners have filed the Petition against the

Respondents under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act

seeking Compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of

Ramanamma W/o. Late. N. Balakrishna in a Road Traffic
SCCH-14 3 MVC.5862/2023

Accident.

2. The brief averments made in the Petition is as under:

That on 30.07.2023 at about 7.15 p.m. the deceased

Ramanamma was going home from petty shop on a footpath at

her village Krishnapuram, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District,

Andra Pradesh, at that time, an un registered Honda Unicorn

Motor cycle bearing Reg. No.AP-40-D-4584 (Chasis

No.ME4KC404FPA012533, Engine No.KC40EA3012684) came

from behind at high speed in a rash and negligent manner,

came to the footpath and dashed violently against the

pedestrian Ramanamma. Due to the heavy impact, she fell

down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the

accident, she was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Madanapalle and in

the course of treatment she succumbed to the injuries.

Prior to the date of accident, the deceased Ramanamma

was hale and healthy and she was an agriculturist and was

earning Rs.20,000/- per month.

3. The Petitioners have further contended that the
SCCH-14 4 MVC.5862/2023

accident has taken place solely due to rash and negligent

driving of Honda Unicorn motorcycle by its rider. Respondent

No.1 is the owner and Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the

Honda Unicorn motorcycle are jointly and severally liable to pay

compensation to the Petitioners.

4. In pursuance of service of notice to the Respondents,

they appeared before the court through their respective

counsels and filed objections to the main petition.

In the Objection Statement of Respondent No.1, admitted

the accident. But he denied the negligence riding of rider of his

two wheeler. He contended that Ramanamma all of sudden

crossed the road without observing the movements of the

vehicles on Boyakonda-Madanapalle road and due to her

negligence this accident occurred. The deceased Ramanamma

was herself contributed to the accident. The rider of the motor

cycle namely Subramanyam had a valid and effective driving

licence to ride the vehicle. His two wheeler was insured with the

Respondent No.2. On these grounds, the Respondent No.1 has
SCCH-14 5 MVC.5862/2023

prayed to dismiss the petition against him.

In the Objection Statement of Respondent No.2, denied the

age, avocation and income of the deceased. Further contended

that the accident occurred due to negligence of the rider of

Motor cycle and further it admits the issuance of insurance in

respect of Motor cycle bearing Reg. No.AP-40-D-4584. Further it

contended that owner of the insured Motor cycle has not

intimated the alleged accident to this respondent and there is

violation of Section 134(c) of Motor Vehicles Act. Further it

contended that, the rider of the motor cycle was not holding a

valid and effective driving license at the time of accident.

Further it contended that the said accident has occurred due to

sole negligence of deceased herself, who was thus unmindful of

the flow of traffic on the road and accident having so occurred

on the road. On these grounds, the Respondent No.2 has prayed

to dismiss the petition against it.

5. On the rival pleadings, the following Issues have been

framed:

SCCH-14 6 MVC.5862/2023

ISSUES

1. Whether the Petitioners prove that they
are the legal representatives of the
deceased?

2. Whether the Petitioners prove that Smt.
Ramanamma died due to injuries
sustained by her in an accident occurred
on 30.07.2023 at about 7.15 p.m., at
Krishnapuram Village, Madanapalli-

Boykonda road, Chittoor District, Andra
Pradesh, arising due to rash and
negligent riding of the rider of Motor
cycle bearing Reg. No.AP-40-D-4584?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and from
whom?

4. What Order or Award?

6. In order to prove the case, the Petitioner No.1 got

examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 10 documents as

per Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10 and examined an eye witness as PW.2

and got marked one document at Ex.P.11 and closed his side
SCCH-14 7 MVC.5862/2023

evidence. On the other hand, Respondent No.2 examined its

Manager-Legal Department as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1

and closed its side evidence. Respondent No.1 got examined

himself as RW.2 and got marked documents at Ex.R.2 and

Ex.R.3.

7. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the

Petitioners and the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2. I

have perused the depositions, citations relied by the learned

counsel for petitioners and Respondent No.2, documents

exhibited and materials available on record.

8. My answer to the Issues are as under :

          Issue No.1      : In the Affirmative
          Issue No.2      : In the Affirmative
          Issue No.3      : Partly in the Affirmative.
          Issue No.4      : As per the Final Order,
                           for the following :

                         REASONS

9. Issue No.1 – It is the case of the Petitioners that the

mother of the petitioners was died in the Road Traffic Accident
SCCH-14 8 MVC.5862/2023

caused by the rider of the offending Motor cycle bearing No.AP-

40-D-4584.

On the other hand, the Respondents have specifically

denied the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the Motor

cycle.

10. In order to prove the case of the Petitioners, Petitioner

No.1 has been examined as P.W.1 and got marked 10

documents as per Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10. Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 are the

certified copies of FIR, Complaint, IMV report, Inquest

panchanama, PM report and Charge sheet and Ex.P.8 is spot

sketch.

11. Upon going through the said documents, Ex.P.1 i.e.,

FIR with Complaint and Ex.P.1(a) its English translated copy

show that the case was registered against the rider of the

offending motor cycle for the offence punishable under Section

304A of IPC. Ex.P.2 is the IMV report which shows that the

cause of accident is not due to any mechanical defects of the
SCCH-14 9 MVC.5862/2023

vehicle involved in the accident. Ex.P.3 is the Inquest mahazar

in Telugu language and Ex.P.3(a) its English translated copy.

Ex.P.4 is the PM report, which shows that cause of death is due

to injury to brain and scalp heading internal and external

bleeding heading shock and death. Ex.P.5 is the true copy of

the Charge-sheet, which shows that the I.O of Punganur Police

station has submitted Charge-sheet against the rider of

Motorcycle for the offences punishable under Sections 304A of

IPC and under Sec.3 R/W 181of MV Act. Ex.P.6 is the notarized

copy of Aadhar card of deceased. Ex.P.7 is the Notarized copy of

Aadhar card of PW.1. Ex.P.8 is the true copy of Spot sketch and

Ex.P.8(a) its translated copy which shows that the concerned

police prepared sketch at the spot in the presence of panchas.

Ex.P.9 is the notarized copy of Family member Certificate.

Ex.P.10 is the notarized copy of Aadhar card of Petitioner No.2.

12. The accident is not in dispute. Learned counsel for

the Respondent No.2 vehemently argued that the deceased had

contributed negligent for the accident. In support of his
SCCH-14 10 MVC.5862/2023

arguments he relied upon the following judgments

(i) ILR 2003 Kar 1104 between Koosappa Poojary V/s.

K. Sadabba and others, wherein the Hon’ble High Court of

Karnataka has held as follows;

” All the more so the driver of the vehicle ought to have been
more prudent and circumspect while driving. But, it cannot
be lost sight of the fact that a duty is also cast on a
pedestrian and he should use due care and caution in going
upon and crossing the road and it is his duty to look out for
oncoming traffic. Insofar as the another duty cast on the
pedestrian is concerned, it is needless to say that he has to
give the driver a plenty of time to see him and slow down
and start before he attempts to cross or put one foot on the
crossing, It is not always necessary that the vehicular traffic
will have to stop for a pedestrian to cross, for the vehicle
needs more time to stop in view of the speed a motor
generates. Moreover, whenever a pedestrian is crossing over
a roadway at any place other than which is meant for
pedestrian crossing, they cannot claim any specific
precedence and the responsibility for causing the accident
more often than not will have to be shared by the pedestrian
along with the vehicle driver. In view of this, it cannot be said
that it was only the driver of the vehicle in question was
solely responsible for the accident. It has also to be noted
that there is no evidence forthcoming to show that it was the
pedestrian crossing or whether there were any zebra-
crossing. In view of the fact that the claimant had crossed
the road where he was not supposed to cross certain degree
of contributory negligence will have to be attributed to him.”

(ii) MFA No.11267/2008 (MV) between Johny.B Vs
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd
. Decided on
SCCH-14 11 MVC.5862/2023

18.06.2012. Wherein the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka has held as follows;

“Reading of the contents of sketch Ex.P.3 and the spot
mahazar Ex.P4 indicate that there is some inconsistency
between the two. From the sketch it appears the lorry had
over taken the motor cycle and thereafter has hit the
pedestrian who was almost on the footpath on the western
side of the road, whereas, as per the contents of Ex.P4-spot
mahazar, the lorry after hitting the pedestrian went further
and dashed against a motor cycle. No documentary
evidence is produced to show as to whether the rider or
owner of the motor cycle had lodged any complaint or had
made any claim. In Ex.P.4, there is no mention about the
motor cycle being found at the place of the accident in a
damaged condition. Therefore, the contents of sketch Ex.P.3
and mahazar Ex.P.4, in my opinion, do not depict the correct
picture about the scene of occurrence. Thus from the very
admission made by the claimant, it is clear that he tried to
cross the road at the place where it was not meant for a
pedestrian to cross the road. The accident occurred at about
5.45 p.m. as such there was sufficient sun light. The
claimant ought to have chosen the place provided for
crossing the road. Even otherwise he should have watched
the oncoming vehicles before attempting to cross the road.
Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case and the evidence available on record, in my opinion,
the Tribunal is justified in holding that there was
contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. The
quantum of contributory negligence assessed by the Tribunal
having regard to the manner in which the accident occurred
is just and proper and it cannot be te4rmed as either
perverse or illegal. In my opinion, the Tribunal is justified in
holding that there was contributory negligence on the part of
the appellant/claimant to an extent of 20%. The said finding
is sound and reasonable, as such it does not call for
interference.”

SCCH-14 12 MVC.5862/2023

13. Keeping in the aforesaid principles decided the case on

hand on available evidence. In the cross-examination, PW.1 has

admitted that the accident occurred between 7.45 pm and 8.00

pm. There was a street light at the spot of the accident. Further

he admitted that the said accident happened when his mother

was walking. There is a divider in the middle of the said road. At

the time of the accident, his mother was going on the middle of

the road. Further he admitted that the accident occurred due to

his mother’s fault. The offending vehicle had no registration

number at the time of accident. He admitted that he was

informed about the accident by the eye witnesses. He further

admitted that there was Zebra crossing at the place of accident.

He also admitted that it was national highway. He denied that

that his mother was crossing the road where there was no Zebra

crossing. He has denied the other suggestions of learned

counsels for Respondents.

14. Petitioners have also examined an eye witness by

name Srinivasulu. He deposed that on 30.07.2023 at about
SCCH-14 13 MVC.5862/2023

7.15 PM he was standing at a shop in his village, at that time

his villager Ramanamma was standing on the middle of the road

while crossing the road, at that time the offending motor cycle

came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her.

15. During the course of cross-examination of PW.2, he

has admitted that the deceased Ramanamma is his neighbor.

The accident happened between his house and deceased house.

The accident happened at 7.30 p.m. At that time, he was

standing near a shop. He saw the offending vehicle. The said

vehicle did not have a number plate and the said vehicle was at

the spot after the accident.

16. The Respondent No.2 has examined its Manager-Legal

Department as RW.1 and got marked document at Ex.R.1.

Respondent No.1 examined himself as RW.2 and got marked

two documents at Ex.R.2 and 3. RW.1 and 2 have re-iterated

their respective written statement averments. In the cross

examination of RW.2 he admitted that at the time of accident,

his friend Subrahmani was driving the said vehicle. Further he
SCCH-14 14 MVC.5862/2023

categorically admitted that the accident was happened due to

the negligence of his friend Subramani.

17. It is relevant to not here that the charge sheet is filed

against the rider namely Bavanasi Subramanyan S/o

B.Munivenkatappa for the offence under section 304 A IPC and

section 3 R/w 181 of MV Act. It means rider of the bike had no

driving licence to ride the bike. But the Respondent N.1 owner

of the offending bike had produced the licence of rider of the

bike which is marked at Ex.R.2. This document shows that the

rider of the bike Subramanya had DL to drive the LMV and

Motor cycle with gear. The said DL was issued on 07.08.2009

and it is valid till 06.08.2029. The accident has occurred on

30.07.2023. Hence, it is clear that as on the date of accident the

rider of the offending bike had valid DL to ride the bike.

18. Regarding negligence aspect: As discussed above

accident is admitted by the both Respondents. Their specific

contention is the deceased contributed for the accident as she

was crossing the road without observing the traffic where there
SCCH-14 15 MVC.5862/2023

was no Zebra cross. No doubt that a pedestrian has to cross the

road in the place where it is meant for pedestrian crossing. In

this case, when the PW.2/ eye witness is cross-examined no

efforts were made to show that there was no pedestrian crossing

in the alleged accident spot. Thought the PW.1 is not the eye

witness to the accident, but the place of accident was near to

his house. Hence, he is familiar with that place. As such his

evidence could be considered in respect of place of accident is

concerned. In his cross-examination he specifically deposed that

there was Zebra cross at the spot. The respondent did not

adduce any evidence to show that there was no pedestrian

crossing at the accident spot. The photographs of the accident

spot is not produced by either of the parties. On perusal of

Ex.P.8 Sketch, the accident spot is exactly on the middle of the

road. It further shows that the house of deceased was also

beside the said road. It is pertinent to state here that as per the

police documents, the accident occurred in the village. Hence,

though it is the national highway, but normally in the villages,
SCCH-14 16 MVC.5862/2023

there will be provision for crossing the road by pedestrians.

Thus, without specific evidence and pleadings in this regard, it

cannot be held that there was no pedestrian crossing was

marked at the accident spot. Hence, with due respect the above

precedent laid down in the above judgments is not applicable to

the present case on hand.

19. Moreover, the charge sheet is the material document,

which is not challenged by the rider of the offending vehicle.

Further though the Respondents denied the rash and negligent

riding of the rider of the offending motor cycle, but they have

not produced cogent evidence to prove their contention.

Furthermore the RW.2 who is the owner of the offending motor

cycle in his cross-examination clearly admitted that due to

negligence of the rider of the offending bike the accident was

taken place. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered

opinion that the said accident has been occurred by the rash

and negligent riding of the rider of the offending vehicle and the

deceased Ramanamma succumbed to the injuries sustained in
SCCH-14 17 MVC.5862/2023

the accident. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in the

“Affirmative”.

20. Issue No.1 and 3: Both these issues are taken

together for common discussion as they are interlinked with

each other and to avoid the repetition of the facts.

21. It is stated in the Petitions that the Petitioner No.1

and 2 are the sons of the deceased Ramanamma. In order to

prove this fact, PW.1 has produced Ex.P.6, 7 and 10 his Aadhar

card and the Aadhar cards of the petitioner No.2 and deceased

Ramanamma. Further they have produced Ex.P.9 Family

member certificate. Upon going through the same, they prove

the relationship of the deceased with the petitioners. Hence, the

petitioners have proved that they are the children and legal

representatives of the deceased Ramanamma.

22. In the petition, the age of the deceased was shown as

61 years and her avocation is shown as Agriculturist and was

earning Rs.20,000/- per month. PW.1 has not produced any
SCCH-14 18 MVC.5862/2023

document to prove the occupation and income of deceased. In

the absence of any other documentary evidence before the Court

to prove the income of the deceased, it is proper to take the

notional income of the deceased Ramanamma as Rs.16,000/-

as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal

Service Authority, since the said accident has been occurred in

the year 2023.

23. Further, the Petitioners stated the age of the deceased

Ramanamma was 61 years at the time of the accident. PW.1 has

produced Aadhar card of the deceased at Ex.P.6. The Ex.P.6,

shows the date of birth of the deceased is as 01.01.1961. The

accident was occurred on 30.07.2023. That means, as on the

date of accident, the age of the deceased Ramanamma was 62

years.

24. The learned Counsel for Petitioner argued that the

major children of deceased are considered as dependents. In

support of his arguments he relied upon the following

judgments:

SCCH-14 19 MVC.5862/2023

(i) (2020) 11 SCC 356 between National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Birender and Others, Decided on

13.01.2020, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as

follows:

“12.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 dependent 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. In Manjuri
Bera (supra), the Court observed thus:

“9. In terms of clause (c) of subsection (1) of Section
166
of the Act in case of death, all or any of the legal
representatives of the deceased become entitled to
compensation and any such legal representative can
file a claim petition. The proviso to said subsection
makes the position clear that where all the legal
representatives had not joined, then application can be
made on behalf of the legal representatives of the
deceased by impleading those legal representatives as
respondents. Therefore, the High Court was justified in
its view that the appellant could maintain a claim
petition in terms of Section 166 of the Act.

10.. …..The Tribunal has a duty to make an award,
determine the amount of compensation which is just
and proper and specify the person or persons to whom
SCCH-14 20 MVC.5862/2023

such compensation would be paid. The latter part
relates to the entitlement of compensation by a person
who claims for the same.

11. According to Section 2(11) CPC, “legal
representative” means a person who in law represents
the estate of a de ceased 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
representa tive under the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996
i.e. un der Section 2(1)(g).

12. As observed by this Court in Custodian of
Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino v. 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 prop erty
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 represenatative”.
As observed in
Gujarat SRTC v. 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 necessarily be a wife, husband,
parent and child.”

14. 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
SCCH-14 21 MVC.5862/2023

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
dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim
towards conventional heads only. The evidence on
record in the present case would suggest that the
claimants were working as agricultural labourers on
contract basis and were earning meagre income
between Rs.1,00,000/ and Rs.1,50,000/ per annum.
In that sense, they were largely dependant on the
earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with
her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48
years.

(ii) Civil Appeal No.2323 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C)

No.444 of 2025) between Seema Rani & Ors Vs. The Oriental

Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors. Decided on 11.02.2025. Wherein the

Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

“9. We have heard the learned counsel for the
Appellants. We are unable to agree with the view taken by
the Tribunal on the dependents of the deceased. This court
in National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender & Ors,
had expounded that major married and earning sons of the
deceased, being legal representatives, have a right to apply
for compensation, and the Tribunal must consider the
application, irrespective of whether the representatives are
fully dependent on the deceased or not. The court went on
to conclude that since the sons, in that case, were earning
SCCH-14 22 MVC.5862/2023

merely Rs.1,50,000/- per annum, they were largely
dependent on the earnings of the deceased and were
staying with her.

10. Adverting to the facts at hand, on a perusal of the
statement of Shashi Kumar, the son of the deceased
(Appellant No.2 herein), annexed as Annexure P6, was
working at a petrol pump, while the other son was involved
in temporary employment opportunities only. Both of them
were residing with the deceased. In such circumstances, it
cannot be said that they were self-sufficient or independent
of the deceased. Similarly, applying the exposition in
Birender (Supra), there is no reason to exclude a married
daughter from compensation. Therefore, in view of this, the
High Court erred in excluding these dependents.

25. Keeping the aforesaid principle in mind, this Tribunal

would proceed to decide the case on hand by considering the

evidence available on record. In the case on hand, admittedly

the petitioner No.1 and 2 are the sons of the deceased and they

were majors at the time of death of their mother. There is no

dispute that they were residing with the deceased. In the cross

examination of PW.1 he admits that he is married and he is an

agriculturist and Petitioner No.2 is unmarried. He further

admitted that his mother was an agriculturist and milk vendor

and she had monthly income of Rs.25,000/-. Hence, it cannot
SCCH-14 23 MVC.5862/2023

be said that they were not residing with their mother and they

were completely independent. Under such circumstances, this

tribunal held that the petitioner were dependents on her

mother.

26. With this background, the quantum of compensation

to which the Petitioners are entitled may be adjudicated. For

the sake of convenience, discussion may be had under following

heads :

I. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF CONSORTIUM,
COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF ESTATE,
COMPENSATION TOWARDS FUNERAL EXPENSES:

27. In Magma General Insurance company Limited Vs.

Nanuram (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Hon’ble Apex court has

observed

“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
SCCH-14 24 MVC.5862/2023

to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with
the deceased spouse”.

28. This observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is

reaffirmed in United Indian Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.

Satinder Kaur @ Satvinder Kaur and others, (2021) 11 SCC

780.

29. The deceased has left behind her, her sons. Hence,

the Petitioner No.1 and 2 are considered as dependents. At this

juncture, I would like to go through principles laid down in the

decision reported in Special Leave Petition (Civil)

No.25590/2014 (National Insurance Company Limited V/s

Pranay Sethi and Others). Wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has

observed that : “Loss of estate has to be compensated by

awarding Rupees 15,000/-, loss of consortium should be

Rupees 40,000/- and funeral expenses should be Rupees

15,000/-“.The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced @ 10%

in every three years.”

30. The Petitioners are the sons of the deceased.

SCCH-14 25 MVC.5862/2023

Petitioners have to live remaining part of their life in the

absence of their mother. The loss of mother full of hopes for the

future can never be suitably compensated to mother. Therefore,

petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.44,000/- each under the

head of loss of consortium and Rupees 16,500/- towards

loss of estate and Rupees 16,500/- towards funeral

expenses.

II. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF LOVE AND
AFFECTION,

31. Petitioners are the sons of the deceased and they lost

their mother’s love and care. Bearing in mind the relationship of

these Petitioners with the deceased, I am of the opinion that

awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- under this head would

be just and reasonable.

III. COMPENSATION TOWARDS TRANSPORTATION OF
DEAD BODY:

32. The Petitioners might have spent some amount

towards transportation of body of the deceased. Hence, I am of
SCCH-14 26 MVC.5862/2023

the opinion that awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- under

this head would be just and reasonable.

IV. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:

33. It is pertinent to note here that as per the detailed

discussion as made supra, the income of the deceased was at

Rs.16,000/- p.m.

34. At this juncture, I would like to go through the
decision reported in :

1) 2018 ACJ 740, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
At New Delhi in between Manuswamy and others V/s.

Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpn.
Ltd, wherein it is held as under:

“Quantum fatal accident Principle of
assessment Future prospects Deceased aged : 21,
contract worker in a company – High Court did not
consider future prospects while computing
compensation – Whether claimants are entitled to
compensation after addition of 40 per cent of
income of the deceased towards future prospects ”

– Held : – yes.

SCCH-14 27 MVC.5862/2023

2) 2018 ACJ 5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India, at New Delhi in between Hem Raj Vs. Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd., and others
wherein it is held as under :

           "Quantum              Fatal           accident      - Principles
     of    assessment           Future prospects Deceased aged
     40 Upholding objections of                       insurance   company
     that principle         of        addition          on     account     of

future prospects is not applicable where income
of the deceased is determined by
guesswork, High Court disallowed the
addition of 50 per cent made by the Tribunal
for future prospects while computing
compensation – Whether addition on account
of future prospects is admissible where
minimum income is determined on guesswork in
absence of proof of income Held: Yes:

there cannot be distinction where there is
evidence of income and where minimum
income is determined on guesswork :

     executing        Court            directed           to    respondent
     compute         entitlement                  of     claimants        by
     adding     40        per    cent        of income          for    future
     prospect       and         make corresponding                deduction
     towards personal expenses".
 SCCH-14                       28                   MVC.5862/2023

35. The decision reported in Special Leave Petition

(Civil) No.25590/2014 (National Insurance Company

Limited V/s Pranay Sethi and Others). Wherein Hon’ble Apex

Court has observed that: “In case of self employed or fixed

salary, more than 60 years no addition”. In this Petition, the

deceased was aged 62 years at the time of accident. Hence,

there is no addition towards future prospects. Therefore, the

income of the deceased comes to Rs.16,000/-.

36. Further, as per the principles laid down in decision

reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Sarla Verma and Others Vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation and another) the multiplier

applicable is 7. In Sarla Verma‘s case, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India has held that where the number of dependent of

family members is 2 to 3, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased

may be deducted towards her personal and living expenses.

37. After deducting 1/3rd towards her personal expenses

in Rs.16,000/- it comes to Rs.10,667/- (16,000-5,333) and
SCCH-14 29 MVC.5862/2023

multiplier applied is 7 which comes to Rs.8,96,028/-(10,667 x

12 x 9 = Rs.8,96,028/-). Thus, the Petitioners are entitled for

compensation of Rs.8,96,028/- towards loss of dependency.

38. TOTAL QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION TO WHICH

THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED:

1. Loss of consortium Rs. 88,000/-

2. Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 50,000/-

3. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/-

4. Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/-

5. Expenses of transportation Rs. 10,000/-

of dead body

6. Loss of Dependency Rs. 8,96,028/-

Total Rs.10,77,028/-

Thus, totally the Petitioners are awarded compensation of

Rs.10,77,028/- which is rounded off to Rs.10,77,100/- with

costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition
SCCH-14 30 MVC.5862/2023

till the date of realization.

39. Regarding Liability : As already discussed above, in

this case the rider of the offending Motor cycle bearing Reg. No.AP-

40-D-4584 was charge-sheeted. Further, there is no dispute about

the validity of the Insurance Policy of the offending vehicle.

Therefore, Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to

pay compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, I answer Issue

No.1 in the “Affirmative” and Issue No.3 “Partly in the

Affirmative”.

40. Issue No.4 : From the above discussion, I am of the

opinion that the Petitioners are entitled for compensation of

Rs.10,77,100/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from

the date of the Petition. In the result, I proceed to pass the

following :

ORDER
The Claim Petition filed by the
Petitioners against the Respondents No.1
SCCH-14 31 MVC.5862/2023

and 2 U/Sec. 166 of M.V. Act is hereby
allowed in part with costs.

The Petitioners are entitled for total
compensation of Rs.10,77,100/- along with
cost and simple interest at the rate of 6%
p.a., from the date of the Petition till the
date of deposit of the Award amount.

The Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly
and severally liable to pay the
compensation amount to the Petitioners.

The Respondent No.2 being the
Insurer of the offending vehicle is directed
to deposit the Award amount and interest
within 60 days from the date of the Award.

Compensation amount awarded to
the Petitioners are apportioned among
them are as shown below:

1) 50% each to the Petitioner No.1 & 2.

After being deposit of the Award
amount and interest by the Respondent
No.2, out of the amount awarded to the
Petitioner No.1 and 2, 75% of the award
SCCH-14 32 MVC.5862/2023

amount is ordered to be paid to the
Petitioner No.1 and 2 by way of E- payment
and after their proper identification and
the remaining 25% of the award amount
shall be kept in Fixed deposit in the name
of Petitioner No.1 and 2 in any
Nationalized or Scheduled Bank for a
period of 3 years of their choice.

                The      Advocate      fee   is   fixed       at
          Rs.1,000/-.

                Draw Award accordingly.

(Dictated to the stenographer, typed and computerized by her,
corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open
Court on this 03rd day of March, 2025)

(D.RAMESH)
MEMBER, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.

SCCH-14 33 MVC.5862/2023

Annexure
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioners :

P.W.1 : Sri N. Thrilok
P.W.2 : Sri R. Srinivasulu
Documents marked as Exhibits for the Petitioners :

Ex.P1            True copy of FIR with Complaint
Ex.P1(a)         Translated copy of complaint
Ex.P2            True copy of IMV report
Ex.P3            True copy of Inquest panchanama
Ex.P3(a)         Translated copy of Inquest
Ex.P4            True copy of PM report
Ex.P5            True copy of Charge-sheet
Ex.P6 & 7        Notarized copies of Aadhar cards (2 in
                 numbers)
Ex.P8            True copy of Spot sketch
Ex.P8(a)         Translated copy of Spot sketch
Ex.P.9           Family member Certificate
Ex.P.10          Notarized copy of Aadhar card of petitioner
                 No.2
Ex.P.11          Notarized copy of Aadhar card of PW.2



Witness examined on behalf of the Respondents :

 RW.1      :   Miss Swathi M.,
 RW.2      :   Sri B. Subramanyam
 SCCH-14                         34           MVC.5862/2023



Documents marked as Exhibits for the Respondents :

Ex.R.1 – Authorization letter

Ex.R.2 – Notarized copy of Driving Licence

Ex.R.3 – Notarized copy of Aadhar card

(D.RAMESH)
MEMBER, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Share post:

Subscribe

spot_imgspot_img

Popular

More like this
Related