Bangalore District Court
Niveditha C vs Kumar Y on 16 October, 2025
KABC020189402025
IN THE COURT OF XIX ADDL.JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
BENGALURU (SCCH-17)
PRESENT: SRI. KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM B.A.L., LL.M.,
XIX ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & ACJM,
BENGALURU
Dated: This the 16th day of October - 2025
M.V.C.No. 3264/2025
Petitioners 1. Smt. Niveditha C.,
W/o Late Kiran Kumar K.,
Aged about 28 years,
2. Kushika K. Gowda,
D/o Late Kiran Kumar,
Aged about 6 years,
3. Lishvika
D/o Late Kiran Kumar K.,
Aged about 01 year 3 months,
4. Kempanna B.,
S/o Late Byanna,
Aged about 61 years,
5. Ratnamma,
W/o Kempanna B.,
Aged about 53 years,
SCCH-17 2 MVC 3264/2025
Petitioners No.2 and 3 are minors
Rep. by their mother and natural
guardian Niveditha C.
All are residing at
Madagondanahalli village,
Kodigehalli (P), Kasaba Hobli,
Doddaballapura Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District.
Also:
No.73, Rachenahalli village,
Near Ambabhavani Temple,
Dr. Shivaram Karananth Nagar
Post, Bengaluru - 560077.
(By Sri G.B. Ananda, Adv.,)
V/s
Respondents Sri. Kumar Y.,
S/o Yellappa,
R/at Vaderhalli Layout,
Vidhyaranyapura post,
Bengaluru - 560097.
(RC owner of Tempo Traveller
bearing No.KA-41-A-3287)
(Exparte)
SCCH-17 3 MVC 3264/2025
JUDGMENT
This judgment is emerged consequent upon the petition filed by the petitioners U/S 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation on account of death of Kiran Kumar K., in the road accident dated 28-04-2025.
2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, are as follows:
On 28-04-2025 at about 1.20 a.m., the deceased was riding the Electrical Scooter bearing No.KA-50-EN- 5969 from Bagaluru cross towards Kogilu cross on the extreme left side on B.B. service road, while so proceeding reach near Collins Aerospace Company, Yelahanka, Bengaluru City, at that time the driver of Tempo Traveller bearing No.KA-41-A-3287 came from opposite direction at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased and caused the accident. Due to the impact the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the SCCH-17 4 MVC 3264/2025 spot. Thereafter the petitioners have performed funeral and obsequies ceremonies by spending an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.
At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 36 years, doing Real Estate Business and also doing agricultural operation, and earning Rs.40,000/- p.m. Due to untimely death of deceased the petitioners have suffered mentally and physically, they have lost their bread earner.
The petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2 and 3 are the children and petitioner No.4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased, have lost their beloved care taker. The respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Hence prays to award compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- with interest.SCCH-17 5 MVC 3264/2025
3. In spite of service of notice, the respondent- owner of the offending vehicle has not appeared before the tribunal and placed exparte.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following Points were framed by this court:
POINTS
1. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Kiran Kumar K. died in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 28-04-2025 at about 1.20 a.m., on Bengaluru- Bellary service road, near Collins Aerospace Company, Yelahanka, Bengaluru, due to the rash and negligence driving of the Tempo Traveller bearing No.KA-41-A-3287 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal heirs and dependents of deceased?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
4. What order or award?SCCH-17 6 MVC 3264/2025
5. In order to prove the claim petition, the first petitioner is examined as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the material evidence that is available on record.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under.
Issue No.1: In the affirmative,
Issue No.2: In the affirmative,
[
Issue No.3: In the affirmative,
Issue No.4: As per final orders
for the following.-
REASONS
ISSUE NO.1:
8. The petitioners to prove their claim have produced true copies of FIR, complaint, spot mahazar along with sketch, photograph, seizure mahazar, IMV report, AIR report, inquest report, PM report along with FSL report, head of charge sheet and statement of SCCH-17 7 MVC 3264/2025 witnesses which are marked under Ex.P.1 to P13 and Ex.P.17 to P.19.
9. As per the documents, produced by the petitioners, Ex.P1- FIR is came to be registered on the basis of first information given by one Manjunath B. who is the relative of the deceased as per Ex.P2. In the said Ex.P1 & 2, the first informant alleged the rash and negligent driving by the driver of Tempo Traveller bearing No.KA-41-A-3287. In continuation, the IO conducted spot mahazar and rough sketch as per Ex.P.3 and P.4, photographs at Ex.P5. As per the spot mahazar marked at Ex.P3 and rough sketch at Ex.P.4 the accident spot is in the service road. As per the Ex.P.5 photographs the accident spot is in the extreme left side edge of the road.
10. In Ex.P.9 & 10 IMV reports it is found that the offending vehicle bearing No.KA-41-A-3287 has got damages in its left side corner of the bumper, left side headlight assembly and front left side mudguard. The SCCH-17 8 MVC 3264/2025 motorcycle in which the deceased was proceeding has got major damages in its front side. Thus it is the negligence on the part of the driver of the tempo traveler has got established.
11. As per the Ex.P.17 charge sheet and Ex.P13 FSL report at the time of accident, the deceased was under the influence of alcohol. Thus, as the deceased was under the influence of alcohol whether the deceased himself was negligent under the influence of alcohol has to be looked into. By considering the same it is established before this tribunal that as per Ex.P.17 charge sheet and Ex.P13 FSL report at the time of accident the deceased was under the influence of alcohol.
As per the other details available in crime records very specifically Ex.P4 rough sketch and Ex.P.5 photogrpahs shows that the deceased was proceeding in the extreme edge of the service road. But the driver of offending TT vehicle came from opposite direction and caused the SCCH-17 9 MVC 3264/2025 accident. The photographs marked at Ex.P.5 makes this court to not to consider the contributory neglgience merely because the deceased was under the influence of alcohol. If the driver of tempo traveler not came to the wrong side in the service road the said accident is not going to be caused in the edge of the road. Further if the driver of offending tempo traveler was in a controllable speed and was not negligent he could have controlled his vehicle before dashing the deceased. Thereby merely because of the deceased was under the influence of alcohol the contributory negligence cannot be considered. On the other hand, the respondent neither appeared before the tribunal nor adduced any oral or documentary evidence to rebut the case of the petitioners by establishing the negligence of the deceased.
12. The said oral and documentary evidence placed by the PW1 is neither disputed nor challenged by the respondent by cross-examining the PW1 or by filing the SCCH-17 10 MVC 3264/2025 written statement. The evidence adduced by the PW1 remained unchallenged.
13. According to the charge sheet, the driver of the Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-41-A-3287 driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and thereby caused the accident. The police have accordingly filed a charge sheet against the driver for offences punishable under Sections 281, 106(1) of BNS Act.
14. On careful scrutiny of Ex.P1 to P5, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the version of the petitioners.
15. At this juncture it is worth to refer to the decision reported in Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others (2009) 13 SCC 530, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in petitions before Motor Accident Claims Tribunals strict proof of an accident caused by a vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants, SCCH-17 11 MVC 3264/2025 they are merely required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
16. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Mallamma Vs. Balaji and Others ILR 2003 Kar 493 held that filing of the charge sheet against the driver is also a prima-facie case to hold that, the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for the accident and burden shifts on him to prove the same.
17. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Anoop Maheshwari v. Shiv Kumar Singh & Others, 2022 SCC OnLine All 1181, held that the burden of proving contributory negligence lies upon the respondents. It is the duty of the driver of the offending vehicle to explain the accident. In the present case, the driver of offending vehicle has not entered the witness box to offer any explanation. As the driver is the only person with special knowledge of the facts, his failure to testify significantly weakens the respondents' case. Along with this if we SCCH-17 12 MVC 3264/2025 perused the Ex.P11 inquest and Ex.P12 & 13 post mortem report with FSL report it is evident that the death of deceased Sri. Kiran Kumar K. is due to shock and haemorrhages as a result of Brain damage consequent to traumatic head injury sustained by him at the time of accident. In the absence of such crucial evidence and considering the corroboration from the charge sheet, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the version of the petitioners. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2
18. As held herein above, the petitioners have proved that Sri Kiran Kumar K. died on 28-04-2025 due to the injuries sustained in RTA, which is caused by the driver of the Tempo Traveller bearing No.KA-41-A-3287.
19. As contended in the petition, that the petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2 and 3 are the minor daughters and petitioner No.4 and 5 are the SCCH-17 13 MVC 3264/2025 parents of the deceased. The respondents do not specifically deny the relationship of petitioners with deceased. The petitioners to prove their relationship with the deceased, have produced the notarized copies of Aadhar cards of petitioners, Birth certificate of petitioner No.3 which are marked at Ex.P.16 respectively. During the course of recording the evidence the notarized copies of Aadhaar cards are compared with the original documents and found correct.
20. As per these documents the petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2 and 3 are the minor daughters & petitioner No.4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased, but the respondents do not dispute the relationship of the petitioners with deceased.
21. In the absence of contradictory evidence the evidence of the petitioners is to be accepted and it is considered that, petitioners being the wife, minor daughters and parents of the deceased are the SCCH-17 14 MVC 3264/2025 dependents of deceased and they are entitled for compensation. Accordingly, issue No.2 answered in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.3:
22. As held herein above, the petitioners proved that Kiran Kumar K. died on 28-04-2025 due to the injuries sustained in RTA, which is caused by the driver of the Tempo traveler bearing No.KA-41-A-3287.
23. Now the quantum of compensation is to be decided. The petitioners have not produced Aadhaar card of the deceased. As per postmortem report marked at Ex.P12 the age of the deceased is 36 years. Hence by relying on the date of birth mentioned in Postmortem report the age of the deceased is considered as 36 years. Hence this court is accepting the age of the deceased as 36 years.
24. As stated in the petition deceased was doing Real Estate Business and agricultural work and earning SCCH-17 15 MVC 3264/2025 Rs.40,000/- p.m. To prove the said fact, the petitioners have produced RTC at Ex.P.15. Further the petitioners also produced the Letter dated 05-03-2025 given by Maltose Agri Products Pvt. Ltd. Wherein it is stated that the deceased was working with them and they were paying Rs.45,000/- salary to the deceased. The said Ex.P14 cannot be accepted on two reasons. Firstly, the author of the Ex.P.14 is not examined and no explanation is offered by showing that whether the said salary was used to be given in cash or through account payment. Secondly, the bank account statement of the deceased is not produced by establishing the financial capacity of the deceased. Such being the case, it is just and necessary to consider the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.17,000/- p.m. as the accident is of the year 2025.
25. As per Sarala varma case the proper multiplier applicable to the age of deceased is 15 . Since the SCCH-17 16 MVC 3264/2025 deceased left his wife, children and father, it is considered that, there are five dependents of deceased, hence 1/4th is to be deducted towards his personal expenses, then the total loss of dependency would be Rs.22,95,000/- (Rs.17,000/- X 12 X 15 = Rs.30,60,000/- minus 1/4th (Rs.7,65,000/-) = Rs.22,95,000/-).
26. In Civil Special leave petition (Civil No.25590/2014 dated 31.10.2016 (National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi & others), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "While determining the income, in case the deceased was self- employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary SCCH-17 17 MVC 3264/2025 method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component."
27. In another reported decision in Civil Appeal Nos.19-20 of 2021 in between Kirti and Another , V/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., as follows;
"When it comes to the second category of cases, relating to notional income for non-earning victims, it is my opinion that the above principle applies with equal vigor, particularly with respect to homemakers. Once notional income is determined, the effects of inflation would equally apply. Further, no one would ever say that the improvements in skills that come with experience do not take place in the domain of work within the household. It is worth nothing that, although not extensively discussed, this Court has been granting future prospects even in cases pertaining to notional income, as has been highlighted by my learned brother, Surya Kant, J., in SCCH-17 18 MVC 3264/2025 his opinion (Hem Raj V. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2018) 15 SCC 654: Sunita Tokas V. New India Insurance Company Ltd., (2019) 20 SCC 688)".
As per the above decisions 40% out of loss of dependency has to be granted towards future prospects which would Rs.9,18,000/-.
29. The petitioners being the wife, daughters and parents of the deceased are entitled for Rs.48,000/- each (Rs.40,000/x 10% hike every three years from 2017 as per Pranay Sethi Case) under the head of loss of consortium. Further, I inclined to award a sum of Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses (this amount is calculated as per Pranaya Sethi case with enhanced rate at 10% after three years).
The petitioners are entitled for compensation under the following heads:
SCCH-17 19 MVC 3264/2025
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 22,95,000/-
2. Loss of future prospects Rs. 9,18,000/-
3. Loss of consortium Rs. 2,40,000/-
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/-
5. Transportation of dead body Rs. 16,500/-
Total Rs. 34,86,000/-
30. Liability:- It is contended by the petitioners that the respondent is the owner of the offending tempo traveler. The Ex.P17 copy of the charge sheet shows that the respondent is made as accused No.2 as he was allowed the driver to drive the said tempo traveler without having insurance policy. The Ex.P.17 charge sheet shows that the present respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. In spite of service of summons the respondent neither appeared nor disputed his ownership on the offending vehicle.
Accordingly, the respondent shall liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., Accordingly, this issue answered in the affirmative.
SCCH-17 20 MVC 3264/2025
ISSUE NO.4:-
31. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners U/s. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioners are entitled for total compensation amount of Rs.34,86,000/- (Rupees Thirty four lakhs eighty six thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.,. from the date of petition till the realization from respondents.
The compensation amount awarded under the head of future prospectus will not carries any interest.
The petitioners No.1 to 5 are entitled for the compensation at the ratio of 40:25:25:5:5.
The respondent owner is directed to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of this order.SCCH-17 21 MVC 3264/2025
Out of awarded amount of petitioner No.1, 50% shall be released to petitioner No.1, on her proper identification and remaining 50% shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in her name in any Scheduled Bank, for a period of three years.Entire amount of petitioner No.2 and 3
is directed to be kept as fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till petitioner No.2 and 3 attains the age of majority.
The entire amount awarded to the petitioner No.4 and 5 is directed to be released on their proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at 1,500/-. Draw the award accordingly. (Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 16th day of October, 2025).
(KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM) XIX ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
PW.1 Smt Niveditha C. SCCH-17 22 MVC 3264/2025 List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex.P1 C/C of FIR Ex.P2 C/C of Complaint
Ex.P3 & C/C of Spot Mahazar along with Sketch 4 Ex.P5 C/C of Photograph Ex.P6 C/C of Seizer Mahazar Ex.P7 & C/C of IMV reports 2 in nos. 8 Ex.P9 & C/C of AIR reports 2 in nos.
10 Ex.P11 C/C of Inquest report Ex.P12 C/C of PM report along with FSL report & 13 Ex.P14 Letter dated 05.03.2025 Ex.P15 RTC 2 in nos. Ex.P16 Notarized copies of 5 Aadhar Cards Ex.P17 C/C copy of Charge sheet Ex.P18 C/C of Statement of witnesses & 19
List of witnesses examined on respondents' side:
- None -
List of documents exhibited on respondents' side:
-NIL-
XIX ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM, Bengaluru.Digitally signed by
KANCHI KANCHI MAYANNA
MAYANNA GOUTAM
Date: 2025.10.29
GOUTAM 13:48:43 +0530