Bangalore District Court
M. Sriramaiah Alias Srirama vs Samiulla on 6 February, 2026
KABC020164992021
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 Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.2336/2021
Dated this 6th day of February, 2026
Petitioners: 1. M. Sriramaiah @ Srirama S/o Late
Muniyappa,
Aged about 55 years,
2. Manjula W/o M. Sriramaiah @ Srirama,
Aged about 44 years,
Both are Residing at No.465,
Muneshwara Temple Street,
Guddadahalli, Hebbala, R.T. Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 032.
(Sri P. Prasad, Advocate)
V/s
Respondents: 1. Samiulla S/o Abdul Azeer,
Aged about 47 years,
No.249, Coles Road, Neharupuram,
2 MVC No.2336/2021
Bengaluru - 560 001.
(RC owner of car bearing
Reg. No.KA-03-ME-8778)
(Ex-parte)
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
No.1/1, Connaught Road,
Queens Road Cross,
Bengaluru - 560 052.
(Insurer of Honda Car bearing
Reg. No.KA-03-ME-8778
Policy No.421704/31/2020/2371 valid
from 19-09-2019 to 18-09-2020)
(Sri V. Shrihari Naidu, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- from the respondents, on account of death of Naveen S., who is son of petitioners No.1 and 2, in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 3 MVC No.2336/2021
On 01-03-2020 at about 8.05 p.m., the deceased Naveen S., and his friends were traveling in a Honda car bearing No.KA-03-ME-8778. The deceased was sitting in the front left side of the car and the said vehicle was driven by one Naranjan L., from Bengaluru City towards Devanahalli, on NH- 7 Bengaluru-Bellary road. When they reached near Venkatala Flyover, Yelahanka, the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations and dashed to the center divider of the said road, at a speed of about 110 km/hr. Due to which the said car jumped towards the opposite side road and collided to the cab bearing Reg. No.KA-54-B-7209, coming from Devanahalli side towards Bengaluru. Due to said impact, the deceased has sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Columbia Asia Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as an in-patient. But, during the course of treatment he succumbed to injuries. Earlier to the accident 4 MVC No.2336/2021 the deceased was working as Assistant at M/s. For 804 Milk Shoppe, Bengaluru and was earning a sum of Rs.16,500/- 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 Yelahanka Traffic Police have registered the case against the driver of the said car for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC. The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Hence, they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition and award compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the respondent No.2 has appeared through its counsel and filed the written statement. Whereas, the respondent No.1 did not choose to appear and remained absent. Hence, the respondent No.1 is placed as ex-parte.
5 MVC No.2336/2021
4. The respondent No.2 in its written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has denied the involvement of the Honda car bearing Reg. No.KA-03-ME- 8778 in the alleged accident and also the manner of accident. Further it is contended that, the petition is bad for non- joinder of necessary and proper parties for adjudication of the above petition. The driver of the cab bearing Reg. No.KA- 54-B-7209, without wearing seat belt and without holding valid and effective driving licence, drove the same on the date of accident. Hence, on this ground alone the petition is liable to be dismissed as against this respondent. It has denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased. Further it is contended that, the driver of the Honda car bearing Reg. No.KA-03-ME-8778 was driving the same carefully, cautiously and on the correct side of the road. The accident in question took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the cab bearing Reg. No.KA-54-B-7209 by its driver. It has admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of Honda 6 MVC No.2336/2021 car bearing Reg. No.KA-03-ME-8778, in favour of respondent No.1 and the said policy was valid for the period from 19-09- 2019 to 18-09-2020. Further it is contended that, the owner of the Honda car bearing Reg. No.KA-03-ME-8778 willfully entrusted the vehicle to the person who was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same as on the date of the accident and as such the respondent No.1 is guilty of breach and violations of the terms and conditions of the policy. It seeks protection under Section 147 and 149 of Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the petition is bad for non-compliance of provision under Sections 134(C) and 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the driver of the cab bearing Reg. No.KA-54-B-7209 has contributed to the cause of the accident and the degree of negligence on the part of the driver of cab was on the higher side. As such the liability if any, as far as this respondent is concerned should considerably be reduced and mitigated by taking into consideration of the higher degree of the 7 MVC No.2336/2021 negligence on the part of the driver of the cab. Further, it has sought for permission to contest the case even on behalf of respondent No.1, under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. Further in its additional written statement, the respondent No.2 has contended that, the deceased was a occupant in the Honda car bearing Reg. No.KA-03-ME-8778 at the time of accident. This respondent is not liable to indemnify the insured/respondent No.1, as the risk of the occupant of the said car is not covered under the 'Liability only policy'. Hence, the above claim petition is liable to be dismissed as against this respondent, as the risk in question is not covered under the 'Liability only policy'. For the above denials and contentions, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the following issues are framed:
8 MVC No.2336/2021
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, the deceased Naveen S., has succumbed to the injuries sustained in road traffic accident, alleged to have been occurred on 01-03-2020, at about 8:20 p.m., on NH-7 Bengaluru-Bellary road, in Venkatala fly over, near Yelahanka, Bengaluru, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Honda Car bearing registration No.KA-
03-ME-8778 ?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?
6. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.2 has got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked total 20 9 MVC No.2336/2021 documents as Ex.P.1 to 20. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has examined its representative/Assistant Manager-Legal as R.W.1 and got marked 2 documents as Ex.R.1 and 2.
7. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the entire material placed on record.
8. 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
9. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioners that, on 01-03-2020 at about 8.05 p.m., when the deceased Naveen S., and his friends were traveling in the offending Honda car bearing No.KA-03-ME-8778, from Bengaluru City towards Devanahalli, on NH-7 Bengaluru-Bellary road, near 10 MVC No.2336/2021 Venkatala Flyover, Yelahanka, the driver of said car drove the same with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations and dashed to the center divider of the said road. Due to which the said car jumped towards the opposite side road and collided to the cab bearing Reg. No.KA-54-B-7209, coming from Devanahalli side towards Bengaluru. Due to said impact, the deceased has sustained grievous injuries all over the body and succumbed to said injuries during course of treatment in the hospital. Further it is contended that, earlier to the accident the deceased was working as Assistant at M/s. For 804 Milk Shoppe, Bengaluru and was earning a sum of Rs.16,500/- 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.
10. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.2 has got examined herself as P.W.1 by filing examination-in-chief 11 MVC No.2336/2021 affidavit, wherein she has reiterated the entire averments made in the petition. Further, in support of their oral evidence, the petitioners have got marked total 20 documents as Ex.P.1 to 20. Out of the said documents, Ex.P.1 is certified copy of F.I.R. and first information statement, Ex.P.2 is certified copy of charge-sheet, Ex.P.3 is certified copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P.4 is certified copy of sketch, Ex.P.5 are certified copy of Motor Vehicles Accident Reports (total 2), Ex.P.6 is certified copy of inquest, Ex.P.7 is certified copy of post-mortem report, Ex.P.8 is death certificate, Ex.P.9 is certification of employment, Ex.P.10 is notarized copy of PUC marks card of deceased, Ex.P.11 is notarized copy of degree certificate of deceased, Ex.P.12 is notarized copy of Aadhar card of deceased, Ex.P.13 is notarized copy of PAN card of deceased, Ex.P.14 are bills of Columbia Asia Hospital, Ex.P.15 are bills of Medistar Hospital, Ex.P.16 is discharge summary, Ex.P.17 is lab report, Ex.P.18 is radiology report, Ex.P.19 are notarized copy of 12 MVC No.2336/2021 Aadhar cards (total 2) and Ex.P.20 are notarized copy of voter ID cards (total 2).
11. On meticulously going through the police documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 7, prima-facia it reveals that, the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Honda car bearing Reg. No.KA-03-ME-8778 and dashing the same to median divider of the road and thereafter to the cab bearing Reg. No.KA-54-B-7209, which was proceeding on the other side of the road in opposite direction. Due to said impact the deceased Naveen S., who was inmate of said car, has sustained grievous injuries all over the body and succumbed to said injuries during the course of treatment in Columbia Asia Hospital, Bengaluru. The investigation officer in his final report/charge-sheet, which is marked as Ex.P.2, has clearly stated that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Honda car 13 MVC No.2336/2021 bearing Reg. No.KA-03-ME-8778 and dashing the same to median divider of the road.
12. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that, in the present case, the date, time and place of accident, the issuance of insurance policy by the respondent No.2 in respect of Honda car bearing Reg. No.KA-03-ME-8778 and its validity as on the date of accident, are not in dispute. Further, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners has remained undisputed by the owner of offending vehicle/Respondent No.1, as he did not choose to appear and contest the case of the petitioners. But, the respondent No.2 has specifically denied the above averred facts and circumstances of the accident and has taken specific defence that, the accident in question has taken place solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the cab bearing Reg. No.KA-54-B-7209 and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of Honda car bearing Reg. No.KA-03-ME- 8778. But, the respondent No.2 has failed to establish the 14 MVC No.2336/2021 said contentions. Except the self serving statements of R.W.1, who is the representative/Assistant Manager-Legal of respondent No.2, there is no other corroborative oral or documentary evidence placed on record by the respondents to show that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the cab bearing Reg. No.KA-54-B-7209 and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of Honda car bearing Reg. No.KA-03-ME-8778. If really the said accident had taken place due to the negligence of the driver of the cab bearing Reg. No.KA-54-B- 7209, the same could have been easily established by examining the eye-witness to the alleged accident. But, the respondents have not taken any strain to examine the eye- witness to the alleged accident, for the reasons best known to them. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that, at the relevant point of time the driver of the cab bearing Reg. No.KA-54-B-7209 was driving his cab in rash and negligent manner and the accident has taken place due 15 MVC No.2336/2021 to his negligence. On the other hand, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners clearly establishes that, the said accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Honda car bearing Reg. No.KA-03-ME-8778 and dashing the same to the median divider of the road and thereafter dashing to the cab bearing Reg. No.KA-54-B-7209, which was proceeding on the other side of the road from opposite direction. Though, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has cross-examined P.W.1 in length, nothing worth has been elicited from her mouth which creates doubt on the veracity of her evidence or which goes to show that, the said accident has occurred due to negligence of the driver of the cab or there was any contributory negligence on his part in the cause of accident.
13. Further, the Ex.P.3 spot mahazar and Ex.P.4 sketch also clearly speaks that, the said accident has taken place on 40 feet wide NH-7 Bengaluru-Bellary road, in Venkatala fly 16 MVC No.2336/2021 over, near Yelahanka, Bengaluru, due to dashing of offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-03-ME-8778 to median divider of the road and thereafter dashing to the cab bearing Reg. No.KA-54-B-7209, which was proceeding on the other side of the road from opposite direction. Further it is pertinent to note, as per Ex.P.5 Motor Vehicle Accident reports, the accident has not occurred due to any mechanical defects in the vehicles involved in the accident. When the accident has not taken place due to any mechanical defects in the vehicles involved in the accident and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the cab, then in the present facts and circumstances of the case it can be presumed that, the said accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-03-ME-8778. Further, the investigation officer in his Ex.P.2 final report/charge-sheet has clearly stated that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Honda car 17 MVC No.2336/2021 bearing Reg. No.KA-03-ME-8778 and dashing the same to median divider of the road and the deceased Naveen S., who was inmate of said car has sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to said injuries. Admittedly, the said final report/charge-sheet has not been challenged by the driver or the owner of offending vehicle. 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 Honda car bearing Reg. No.KA-03-ME-8778 in the said accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle and injuries caused to deceased Naveen S., in the said accident and the cause of his death.
14. Further, the Ex.P.7 Post-mortem report, clearly speaks that, the deceased Naveen S., has died due to septicemia consequent upon multiple injuries, sustained in the road traffic accident. There is absolutely no rebuttal evidence placed on record by the respondents to show that, the 18 MVC No.2336/2021 documents produced by the petitioners are false. In such circumstances and in the light of above observations, it can safely be held that, the respondents have failed to rebut the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners, regarding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Honda car bearing Reg. No.KA-03-ME- 8778 and cause of death of deceased Naveen S.
15. 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) 11 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."
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bimla Devi and others V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation 19 MVC No.2336/2021 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."
17. Therefore, in the light of observations made in the above cited decisions and for the above stated reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioners have successfully proved through cogent and corroborative evidence that, the deceased Naveen S., has succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, occurred on 01-03-2020 at about 8:20 p.m., on NH-7 Bengaluru-Bellary road, in Venkatala fly over, near Yelahanka, Bengaluru, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Honda Car bearing Reg. No.KA-03-ME-8778. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in Affirmative.
20 MVC No.2336/2021
18. Issue No.2: While answering the above issue, for the reasons stated therein, this Court has already held that, the petitioners have successfully proved through cogent and corroborative evidence that, the accident is caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Honda car bearing Reg. No.KA-03-ME-8778 and deceased Naveen S., has sustained grievous injuries in the said accident and has succumbed to said injuries. Now the petitioners are required to establish that, they are the legal representatives of the deceased. In this regard, they have produced the Aadhar card of deceased Naveen S., and their respective Aadhar cards, which are marked as Ex.P.12 and 19. The said documents clearly goes to show that, the petitioners No.1 and 2 are parents of deceased Naveen S. On the other hand, the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased Naveen S., is not specifically denied by the respondent No.2 in the case and even there is no contrary or rebuttal evidence placed on record with respect to same. In such 21 MVC No.2336/2021 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 Naveen S.
19. 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 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.
22 MVC No.2336/2021
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."
20. 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.
21. The compensation towards loss of dependency: The oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners clearly establishes that, the petitioners are the 23 MVC No.2336/2021 legal representatives of the deceased and they were depending on the deceased. The dependency does not only mean financial dependency. Even if the dependency is a relevant criterion to claim compensation for loss of dependency, it does not mean financial dependency is the 'ark of the covenant'. Dependency includes gratuitous service dependency, physical dependency, emotional dependency and psychological dependency. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that, all the petitioners are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of dependency. In order to calculate the loss of dependency, the first step is to determine the age and income of the deceased.
22. 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 this point, the petitioners have produced the Aadhar card and PAN card of deceased Naveen S., which are marked as Ex.P.12 and 13, wherein the date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 24 MVC No.2336/2021 26-06-1999. Admittedly, the accident has occurred on 01-03- 2020. This clearly goes to show that, as on the date of accident the age of the deceased was 21 years. It is averred in the petition that, as on the date of accident the deceased was hale and healthy and was working as Assistant at M/s. For 804 Milk Shoppe, Bengaluru and was earning a sum of Rs.16,500/- per month. To substantiate the same, they have produced the certificate of employment, which is marked as Ex.P.9. But, they have not examined the author of this document. 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.
23. 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 25 MVC No.2336/2021 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."
24. Admittedly the accident took place in the year 2020. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased as per the guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is to be treated as Rs.14,500/- per month. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased in the present case is held as Rs.1,74,000/-.
25. 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 26 MVC No.2336/2021 employee as on the date of death. Since the deceased was aged about 21 years and was not a permanent employee, the future prospects would be 40% of his income, which comes to Rs.69,600/- per annum. Therefore, the future prospects of the deceased is held as Rs.69,600/- per annum. If this income is added to the notional income, then it comes to Rs.2,43,600/- per annum. Further, the annual income of the deceased comes within the exemption limits as per Income Tax Act.
26. 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.1,21,800/-. After deducting 50% out of total income, 27 MVC No.2336/2021 towards the personal expenses of deceased, the annual income of the deceased is held as Rs.1,21,800/-.
27. As on the date of death, the age of the deceased was 21 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.1,21,800/- x 18 = Rs.21,92,400/-.
28. Compensation under conventional heads: In the present case, admittedly the petitioners No.1 and 2 are parents of deceased Naveen S. 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 28 MVC No.2336/2021 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 petitioners No.1 and 2 and funeral expenses comes to Rs.18,000/-.
29. Medical expenses: The petitioners have deposed that, they have spent huge amount towards medical treatment and other charges of the deceased. In order to prove the same, they have produced 2 medical bills, as per Ex.P.14 and
15. The said bills have been examined carefully and found 29 MVC No.2336/2021 that the petitioners have spent total amount of Rs.7,86,435/- towards medical expenses of the deceased. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for Rs.7,86,435/- under the head of medical expenses.
30. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for compensation under different heads as follows :
Sl. Head of
Amount/Rs
No. Compensation
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 21,92,400-00
2. Loss of filial consortium Rs. 96,000-00
3. Loss of estate Rs. 18,000-00
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000-00
5. Medical expenses Rs. 7,86,435-00
Total Rs. 31,10,835-00
Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation of Rs.31,10,835/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petition till its realization. 30 MVC No.2336/2021
31. Liability: Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending Honda Car bearing No.KA-03-ME- 8778. As per Ex.R.2 insurance policy bearing No.421704/31/2020/2371, issued by the respondent No.2, in favour of respondent No.1, in respect of offending Honda Car bearing No.KA-03-ME-8778 was valid from 19-09-2019 to 18-09-2020. As such, the said policy was valid as on the date of accident i.e. 01-03-2020. Further, the evidence placed on record by the petitioners clearly establishes that, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Honda Car bearing No.KA-03-ME-8778 the accident in question has taken place and the deceased Naveen S., has succumbed to grievous injuries sustained in the said accident. In such circumstances, the respondent No.1 being the owner of said vehicle is vicariously liable to compensate for the damage caused by the usage of said vehicle. The respondent No.2 31 MVC No.2336/2021 being the insurer of the vehicle has to indemnify the respondent No.1.
32. But, the respondent No.2 insurance company has taken specific defence that, the policy issued in respect of Honda car bearing No.KA-03-ME-8778 is 'Act Policy', as such the risk of inmates of the car are not covered under the said policy. Further it is contended that, at the time accident the driver of offending Honda car bearing No.KA-03-ME-8778 was not holding driving licence to drive the said vehicle. Therefore, the respondent No.2 insurance company is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.1/insured.The learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently argued that, as per the Ex.P.2 final report/charge-sheet, at the time accident the driver of offending Honda car bearing No.KA-03-ME-8778 was not holding driving licence to drive the said vehicle and hence in addition to the offence punishable under Sec. 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC, he has been charge-sheeted for offence punishable U/Sec. 3(1) R/w 181 of Motor Vehicles Act 32 MVC No.2336/2021 and the owner of the offending vehicle has been charge- sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 5(1) R/w 181 of Motor Vehicles Act. Further argued that, as there is breach of fundamental term and condition of the policy and the risk of inmates of the car are not covered under the said policy, the respondent No.2 insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured/respondent No.1. Hence, the petition against the respondent No.2 insurance company is liable to be dismissed.
33. On the other hand, the learned counsel for petitioners vehemently argued that, it is settled principle of law that, even if there is a fundamental breach of any condition recognised under Sec.149(2) of Motor vehicles Act, the insurance company is liable to pay the third party and recover the same from the insured.
34. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, as per the Ex.P.2 final report/charge-sheet, 33 MVC No.2336/2021 at the time accident the driver of offending Honda car bearing No.KA-03-ME-8778 was not holding driving licence to drive the said vehicle and hence in addition to the offence punishable under Sec. 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC, he has been charge-sheeted for offence punishable U/Sec. 3(1) R/w 181 of Motor Vehicles Act and the owner of the offending vehicle has been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 5(1) R/w 181 of Motor Vehicles Act and admittedly the said final report/charge-sheet has not been challenged either by the driver or the owner offending vehicle. Even, the respondent No.1 did not choose to appear and contest the case of the petitioners. Therefore, in such circumstances, the respondent No.1 cannot be permitted to take the benefit of his wrong and the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is entitled to raise a defence under Sec.149(2) of Motor Vehicles Act. On the other hand, when the respondent No.1 has not opted to pay extra premium and cover the risk of occupants of the car and as there is no 34 MVC No.2336/2021 special contract between the insurer and the insured, the question of holding the respondent No.2 liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners, does not arise at all. The Ex.R.2 insurance policy admittedly being 'Act only Policy', the risk of occupants of the car is not covered. There is no proof of payment of additional premium covering the risk of occupants of the car, other than the driver and cleaner.
35. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.174/2018 (MV-D) C/w MFA No.6621/2018 (MV-D), in between The National Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Sanaulla Khan and others, has clearly held that, "pillion rider is not covered when it is the 'Act only policy' (Liability only Policy) and no extra premium was collected for covering the risk of the pillion rider, the pillion rider or occupant of the car cannot come within the purview of the 'Third Party'. The insurance company is not liable to pay compensation, the owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation."
35 MVC No.2336/2021
36. Therefore, in the light of ratio laid in the above cited decision and for the reasons stated above, this Court is of the opinion that, the respondent No.1 being the owner of offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, it is held that, the respondent No.1 is liable to pay the above compensation of Rs.31,10,835/- to the petitioners, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petition till its realization. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 in Partly Affirmative.
37. Issue No.3: In view of the above findings, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.31,10,835/- (Rupees thirty one lakh ten thousand eight 36 MVC No.2336/2021 hundred and thirty five only), with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 is liable to pay the above compensation amount to the petitioners and it is directed to pay the said amount within two months from the date of this order The above compensation amount is apportioned as follows:
Petitioner No.1 - Father - 50% Petitioner No.2 - Mother - 50% Out of total compensation amount awarded in favour of petitioners No.1 and 2, 30% 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 70% amount with proportionate interest shall be released 37 MVC No.2336/2021 in their favour, 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 6 th day of January, 2026) (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners P.W.1: Manjula W/o M. Sriramaiah @ Srirama Documents marked on behalf of petitioners Ex.P.1: Certified copy of F.I.R. with First Information Statement Ex.P.2: Certified copy of Charge-sheet Ex.P.3: Certified copy of Spot Mahazar Ex.P.4: Certified copy of Sketch Ex.P.5: Certified copy of M.V.A. Reports (total 2) Ex.P.6: Certified copy of Inquest Ex.P.7: Certified copy of Post-mortem Report Ex.P.8: Death Certificate 38 MVC No.2336/2021 Ex.P.9: Certificate of Employment Ex.P.10: Notarized copy of PUC Marks Card of deceased Ex.P.11: Notarized copy of Decree Certificate of deceased Ex.P.12: Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of deceased Ex.P.13: Notarized copy of PAN Card of deceased Ex.P.14: Bill of Columbia Asia Hospital Ex.P.15: Bill of Medistar Hospital Ex.P.16: Discharge Summary Ex.P.17: Lab Report Ex.P.18: Radiology Report Ex.P.19: Notarized copy of Aadhar Cards (total 2) Ex.P.20: Notarized copy of Voter ID Cards (total 2) Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents R.W.1: C. S. Venugopal S/o H. C. Suryanarayana Documents marked on behalf of respondents Ex.R.1: Authorization Letter Ex.R.2: True copy of Insurance Policy (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.