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.5862/2023such 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.5862/2023merely 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.5862/2023be 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.5862/2023to 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.5862/2023multiplier 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.5862/2023and 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.5862/2023amount 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.
