Bangalore District Court
Shushma Sheelavantar vs Sampath S on 8 January, 2026
KABC020331702023
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.6999/2023
Dated this 8th day of January, 2026
Petitioners: 1. Shushma Sheelavantar W/o Late
Jayalinga P.,
Aged about 27 years,
2. Disha J Gowda D/o Late Jayalinga P.,
Aged about 9 months,
3. Puttegowda S/o Karigowda,
Aged about 53 years,
4. Kamalamma W/o Puttegowda,
Aged about 47 years,
All are R/at No.81, Madarahalli,
Kalligowdanadoddi,
Uyyamballi Hobli, Madarahalli,
Ramanagara - 562 119.
(Sri A. S. Girish, Advocate)
2 MVC No.6999/2023
V/s
Respondents: 1. Sampath S. S/o Srinivas,
R/at No.52, Kanakapura Main Road,
Balaji Layout, Vajarahalli,
Thalaghhattapura,
Bengaluru - 560 062.
(Owner of lorry bearing
No.KA-01-AL-3694)
(Sri N. C. Janardhan, Advocate)
2. IFFCO-TOKIO Insurance Co. Ltd.,
"Sri Shanthi Towers", 5th Floor,
3rd Main, No.141, East of NGEF
Layout, Kasturi Nagar,
Bengaluru East.
(Insurer of Lorry bearing
No.KA-01-AL-3694)
(Sri Gururaj Salur, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.75,00,000/- from the respondents, on account of death of Jayalinga P., who is husband of petitioner No.1, father of petitioner No.2 and son of petitioners No.3 and 4, in a road traffic accident. 3 MVC No.6999/2023
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 25-09-2023 at about 00.45 a.m., the deceased Jayalinga was riding his Honda Dio Scooter bearing No.KA-05- LN-6222, from 32nd cross road to 27th cross road, 7th Block, 4th main road, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, slowly, cautiously, by observing all traffic rules and regulations, on the side of the road. When he reached near Jayanagar Metro Station, at that time the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-01-AL-3694 had parked the same in the middle of the road in the night hours, without switching on indicators and putting caution board or reflectors visible to the users of the road. Due to which, the deceased Jayalinga was unable to see the parked lorry and forced to hit his scooter to the hind portion of said lorry. Due to said impact, the deceased has sustained fatal injuries to his face, chest, stomach and other vital organs of the body and died on the spot. Earlier to the accident, the deceased was working as Store Sales Executive with Quess Corp Limited and they have deputed the deceased to LG Electronics India 4 MVC No.6999/2023 Private Ltd., and was earning Rs.28,350/- per month and apart from salary he was also getting overtime and incentives, thus totally earning more than Rs.40,000/- per month. He was contributing his entire earnings to his family. Due to untimely death of a sole bread earner, the petitioners are struggling for their livelihood. The Jayanagar Traffic Police have registered the case against the driver of the said lorry for the offences punishable under Section 279, 283 and 304(A) of I.P.C. The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending lorry. Hence, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition and award compensation of Rs.75,00,000/- with interest.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the respondents No.1 and 2 have appeared through their respective counsel and filed their separate written statements.
5 MVC No.6999/2023
4. The respondent No.1 in his written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. He has contended that, the tipper compactor bearing Reg. No.KA-01- AL-3694 is insured with the respondent No.2/IFFCO TOKIO general Insurance Co. Ltd., vide policy No.1-2WG36MPPP400, policy No.MV440401 issued by the respondent No.2 and it was valid from 22-07-2023 to 21-07-2024. The alleged accident has occurred on 25-09-2023. As such, the said policy was valid as on the date of accident. In the said circumstances, the respondent No.2 alone is liable and answerable for the claims of the petitioner in the present case. Further, he has admitted that he is the owner of the tipper compactor bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AL-3694 and the said vehicle was having valid fitness certificate and heavy goods permit. Further he has contended that, the driver of the tipper compactor was holding valid and effective driving licence vide DL No.KA0319970017768, which was valid from 03-03-1997 to 09-05-2024. Further he has contended that, the 6 MVC No.6999/2023 driver had parked the tipper compactor on the extreme left side of the road and the alleged accident has occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased. In fact, the deceased was drunk and was driving without following any traffic rules, in a rash and negligent manner. While riding his two-wheeler bearing No.KA-05-LN-6222, actually the deceased first hit the footpath and then hit the rare side of the said tipper compactor. Further he has contended that, due to drunk and drive, rash and negligent riding of deceased, without observing the traffic rules and regulations, the alleged accident has occurred and there is no negligence of any sort on the part of the respondent No.1. He has denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased. For the above denials and contentions, he has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. Whereas the respondent No.2 in its written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has denied the alleged accident and alleged involvement of the lorry. It has contended that, the petition against the 7 MVC No.6999/2023 respondents herein is bad for mis-joinder of unnecessary and non-joinder of necessary parties, as the respondents herein are unnecessarily made as parties, with ulterior motive to claim compensation. Hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation in the above case. Further it is contended that, there is total negligence on the part of the deceased himself, as he was riding his scooter without wearing headgear, with high speed, in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the rear portion of the parked lorry. Thereafter the actual facts have been twisted and given wrong description and a false charge-sheet has been made against the alleged driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-01-AL-3694. It has admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of lorry bearing No.KA-01-AL-3694 in favour of respondent No.1 and its validity as on the date of accident. Further it is contended that, the driver of the offending lorry was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the same and he was disqualified to drive the said vehicle at the time of the alleged 8 MVC No.6999/2023 accident. If the alleged cause of action is proved to be true, the insured has knowingly entrusted the vehicle to the driver who had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the class of vehicle at the time of alleged accident and thereby he has committed breach of contract of insurance. Hence, the respondent No.2 is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.1, if the petitioner proves his claims. Further it is contended that, on the date of alleged accident, the lorry bearing No.KA-01-AL-3694 was not having valid permit and fitness certificate. Further it is contended that, the complaint has been lodged before the jurisdictional police with all malafide intentions, after inordinate delay from the date of alleged accident. Absolutely no bonafide reasons are demonstrated for belated complaint and prosecution against the alleged tort-feasor. The petitioners have falsely implicated the alleged insured vehicle by colluding with the respondent No.1/owner of the alleged insured vehicle as well as the jurisdictional police, to get unlawful gain against this 9 MVC No.6999/2023 respondent. Further, it has sought permission to contest even on behalf of respondent No.2, as per Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the petition is bad for non-compliance of provision under Section 134(c) and 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the petitioners have not made the driver of lorry bearing No.KA- 01-AL-3694 as a party to the proceedings. In fact the driver of the said vehicle was also proper and necessary party for the adjudication of claim petition. As such, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. It has denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased. The compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. For the above denials and contentions, it prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, 10 MVC No.6999/2023 deceased Jayalinga P., has succumbed to the injuries sustained in vehicular accident, alleged to have been occurred on 25-09-2023 at about 00.45 a.m., due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-
01-AL-3694 ?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?
7. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 has got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked 22 documents as Ex.P.1 to 22. They have also examined two more witnesses namely Chandrashekhar M. and Charles Thomas as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 has got examined herself as R.W.1 and 11 MVC No.6999/2023 got marked 4 documents as Ex.R.1 to 4. The respondent No.2 has got examined its representative/Legal Executive and Police Inspector of Jayanagar Traffic Police Station as R.W.2 and R.W.3 respectively and got marked 3 documents as Ex.R.5 to 7.
8. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the entire material placed on record. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for petitioners has relied on the following decisions:
i. Archit Saini and another V/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and others, reported in 2018 ACJ 721.
9. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Partly Affirmative Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following:12 MVC No.6999/2023
REASONS
10. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioners that, on 25-09-2023 at about 00.45 a.m., when the deceased Jayalinga was riding his Honda Dio Scooter bearing No.KA- 05-LN-6222, from 32nd cross road to 27th cross road, 7th Block, 4th main road, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, slowly, cautiously, by observing all traffic rules and regulations and when he reached near Jayanagar Metro Station, at that time the driver of offending lorry bearing No.KA-01-AL-3694 had parked the same in the middle of the road in the night hours, without switching on indicators and putting caution board or reflectors visible to the users of the road. Due to which, the deceased Jayalinga was unable to see the parked lorry and forced to hit his scooter to the hind portion of said lorry. Due to said impact, the deceased has sustained fatal injuries all over the body and died on the spot. Further it is contended that, earlier to the accident, the deceased was working as Store Sales Executive with Quess Corp Limited 13 MVC No.6999/2023 and they have deputed the deceased to LG Electronics India Private Ltd., and was earning Rs.28,350/- per month and apart from salary he was also getting overtime and incentives, thus totally earning more than Rs.40,000/- per month. He was contributing his entire earnings to his family. Due to untimely death of a sole bread earner, the petitioners are struggling for their livelihood.
11. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 has got examined herself as P.W.1 by filing her examination-in- chief 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 22 documents as Ex.P.1 to 22. Out of the said documents, Ex.P.1 is true copy of F.I.R., Ex.P.2 is true copy of first information statement, Ex.P.3 is true copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P.4 is true copy of sketch, Ex.P.5 is true copy of post- mortem report, Ex.P.6 is true copy of inquest, Ex.P.7 is true copy of Motor Vehicles Accident report, Ex.P.8 is true copy of 14 MVC No.6999/2023 charge-sheet, Ex.P.9 to 13 are notarized copy of Aadhar cards of petitioners No.1 to 4 and deceased, Ex.P.14 is notarized copy of marriage certificate, Ex.P.15 and 16 are pay-slips (total 2), Ex.P.17 is bank account statement, Ex.P.18 is authorization letter, Ex.P.19 is notarized copy of Identity card of P.W.3, Ex.P.20 is appointment letter, Ex.P.21 are extract of muster role register of wages (total 6) and Ex.P.22 are pay-slips (total 3).
12. Further, the petitioners have examined one more witness by name Chandrashekhar M. S/o Mahadevaswamy as P.W.2, who is said to be the eye-witness to the accident in question. The P.W.2 has deposed in consonance with the evidence of P.W.1. He has deposed in his affidavit that, at the time of accident he was proceeding on a motorcycle from his residence to Majestic to pick up his brother and when he reached near Jayanagar Metro Station, he saw one lorry bearing No.KA-01-AL-3694 was parked at the middle of the road without switching on parking indicators or putting 15 MVC No.6999/2023 stones or branches of trees, which enable the users of the road to visualize the vehicle. At that time, one person who was riding Honda Dio bearing No.KA-05-LN-6222 was moving on the same direction slowly, cautiously and due to non-visibility of parked lorry he was force to dash his scooter to the back portion of said lorry. Due to sudden impact the motorcycle rider sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. He came to know that, the name of the deceased was Jayalinga P. Further he has deposed that, the said accident has occurred due to careless and negligently parking of the lorry bearing No.KA-01-AL-3694 by its driver.
13. On meticulously going through the police documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 8, prima-facia it reveals that, the accident in question has taken place due to negligently parking of the lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AL-3694 on the road by its driver, without switching on parking indicators or putting caution board and taking safety measures in the night hours and also due to rash and negligent riding of the 16 MVC No.6999/2023 deceased/rider of motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-05-LN- 6222. Further it reveals that, due to dashing of the motorcycle to the hind portion of the parked lorry the deceased Jayalinga has sustained fatal injuries on his face, chest, stomach and other vital organs of the body and died on the spot. The investigation officer in his final report/charge-sheet, which is marked as Ex.P.8, has clearly stated that, the said accident has taken place due to negligently parking of the lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AL- 3694 on the road by its driver, without switching on parking indicators and taking safety measures in the night hours and due to rash and negligent riding of the deceased/rider of motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-05-LN-6222.
14. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that, in the present case, the date, time and place of accident, the involvement of lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AL-3694 and issuance of insurance policy by the respondent No.2 in respect of said lorry and its validity as on the date of accident, are not in 17 MVC No.6999/2023 dispute. But, the respondents No.1 and 2 have specifically denied the above averred facts and circumstances of the accident and have taken specific defence that, the accident in question has occurred solely due to rash and negligent riding of the deceased/rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-05-LN-6222 himself and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of lorry bearing No.KA-01-AL-3694. But, the respondents No.1 and 2 have failed to establish the said contentions. Except the self serving statements of R.W.1, who is none other than the owner of offending lorry and R.W.2, who is the representative/Legal Executive 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 solely due to rash and negligent riding of the deceased motorcycle rider and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of offending lorry. Further, it is pertinent to note that, the witness examined by the respondent No.2 i.e. R.W.3, who is 18 MVC No.6999/2023 the police officer who has investigated the case and foisted charge-sheet against the accused persons, has clearly deposed in his evidence that, the said accident has occurred due to negligently parking of the lorry bearing Reg. No.KA- 01-AL-3694 on the road by its driver, without switching on parking indicators and taking safety measures in the night hours and due to rash and negligent riding of the deceased/rider of motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-05-LN- 6222.
15. On the other hand, the P.W.1 and P.W.2 have deposed in their evidence that, the said accident has taken place solely due to negligently parking of the lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AL-3694 on the middle of the road by its driver, without switching on parking indicators and taking safety measures in the night hours. But, it is pertinent to note that, admittedly the P.W.1 is not the eye-witness to the alleged accident and the evidence of P.W.2, who is said to be the eye-witness to the alleged accident, does not found to be 19 MVC No.6999/2023 trustworthy. Because, firstly he has not produced his statement recorded at the first instance before the investigation officer. Secondly, when he was asked to tell the colour of the vehicles involved in the accident, he has stated totally contrary colours to that stated in Ex.P.7 Motor Vehicle Accident report, prepared by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles, R.T.O., Bengaluru (South). Further he has deposed that, the offending lorry was parked in the middle of the road, which is totally contrary to the Ex.P.3 spot mahazar, Ex.P.4 sketch, Ex.P.8 Charge-sheet and oral evidence of R.W.3. Further, he has clearly admitted that, he has not come to the Court on receipt of summons issued by this Court. In such circumstances and in absence of corroborative evidence, doubt arises on the veracity of the evidence of P.W.2. Therefore, this Court declines to rely solely on the uncorroborated oral evidence of P.W.2. On the other hand, the entire investigations records produced and got marked by the petitioners, clearly goes to show that, the 20 MVC No.6999/2023 accident in question has occurred due to negligently parking of the lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AL-3694 on the road by its driver, without switching on parking indicators or putting caution board and taking safety measures in the night hours and also due to rash and negligent riding of the deceased/rider of motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-05-LN- 6222. Further it reveals that, due to dashing of the motorcycle to the hind portion of the parked lorry the deceased Jayalinga has sustained fatal injuries on his face, chest, stomach and other vital organs of the body and died on the spot. But, the oral and documentary evidence available on record clearly goes to show that, the root cause to the said accident is the negligent act of parking of the offending lorry on the road by its driver, without switching on parking indicators or putting caution board and taking safety measures in the night hours. It is not the case of the respondents that, there was provision to park vehicles at the place of accident and the driver of offending lorry had 21 MVC No.6999/2023 parked his vehicle in the parking place. Therefore, in such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that, the root cause to the accident is the negligence of the driver of offending lorry. If he had not parked his vehicle on the road in the night hours or if he had switched on the parking indicators of said vehicle or if had followed traffic rules and regulations, the said accident would not have occurred. On the other hand, if the deceased had driven his motorcycle slowly or in moderate speed, he could have applied break and stopped his vehicle immediately and avoided his motorcycle dashing to the hind portion of stationed lorry and even if he could not have foreseen the stationed lorry and could not have avoided dashing his motorcycle to the stationed lorry, the consequence would not have been so serious. Further, the Ex.R.7 Forensic Science Laboratory report clearly speaks that, the deceased had not consumed alcohol, as alleged by the respondents. Therefore, in such circumstances and for the above stated reasons, this Court 22 MVC No.6999/2023 is of the opinion that, both the drivers have contributed in the cause of accident. But, as the root cause to the said accident was the negligent act of the driver of offending lorry, this Court is of the further opinion that, saddling 80% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AL-3694 and 20% on the part of the deceased/rider of motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-05-LN- 6222, could be justified and it will meet the ends of justice.
16. Further, the Ex.P.3 spot mahazar and Ex.P.4 sketch also clearly speaks that, the said accident has taken place on 4th main road, near Jayanagar Metro Station, Jayanagar 7th Block, Bengaluru, in between the offending lorry bearing No.KA-01-AL-3694 and the motorcycle bearing No.KA-05-LN- 6222. Further as per Ex.P.7 Motor Vehicle Accident report, the said 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 23 MVC No.6999/2023 in the vehicles involved in the accident, then in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it can be presumed that, the said accident had occurred due to negligence of negligence of the driver of offending lorry and due to rash and negligent riding of the deceased motorcycle rider. Further, the investigation officer in his Ex.P.8 final report/charge-sheet has clearly stated that, the said accident has taken place due to negligently parking of the lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AL-3694 on the road by its driver, without switching on parking indicators and taking safety measures in the night hours and due to rash and negligent riding of the deceased/rider of motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-05-LN-6222 and the deceased Jayalinga has succumbed to fatal injuries sustained in the said accident. Admittedly, the said final report/charge-sheet has not been challenged by the driver or the owners of offending vehicles. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the final report filed by the investigation officer and other police 24 MVC No.6999/2023 records, with regard to date, time and place of accident, involvement of the offending lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-01- AL-3694 and motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-05-LN-6222 in the said accident, rash and negligent driving of the drivers of offending vehicles and injuries caused to deceased Jayalinga P., in the said accident and the cause of his death.
17. Further, it is well settled principle of law that, in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as required to be done in a criminal trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parameshwari V/s Amir Chand and others, reported in (2011) 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."
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bimla Devi and others V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 513, has clearly held 25 MVC No.6999/2023 that, "in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are merely required to establish their case on touch stone of preponderance of probability and the standard of proof on beyond reasonable doubt could not be applied."
19. Therefore, in the light of observations made in the above cited decisions and for the above stated reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioners have successfully proved through cogent and corroborative evidence that, the deceased Jayalinga P., has succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, occurred on 25-09-2023 at about 00.45 a.m., on 4th main road, near Jayanagar Metro Station, Jayanagar 7th Block, Bengaluru, due to negligently parking of the lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AL- 3694 on the road by its driver. But, the petitioners have failed to prove that, the said accident has occurred solely due to negligence of driver of said lorry. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both the 26 MVC No.6999/2023 petitioners and respondents clearly establishes that, the said accident has taken place due to negligence of the lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AL-3694 as well as due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-05- LN-6222 by the deceased. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in Partly Affirmative.
20. Issue No.2: While answering above issue, for the reasons stated therein, this Court has already held that, the accident has taken place due to contributory negligence on the part of the driver of lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AL-3694 and the deceased/rider of motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA- 05-LN-6222 and the deceased Jayalinga P., has succumbed to grievous injuries sustained in the said accident. Now the petitioners are required to establish that, they are the legal representatives of the deceased Jayalinga P. In this regard, they have produced their respective Aadhar cards and Aadhar card of the deceased and marriage certificate, which 27 MVC No.6999/2023 are marked as Ex.P.9 to 14. The said documents clearly goes to show that, the petitioner No.1 is wife, petitioner No.2 is daughter and petitioners No.3 and 4 are parents of the deceased Jayalinga P. On the other hand, the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased Jayalinga P., is not specifically denied by the respondents and even there is no rebuttal evidence placed on record by the respondents with respect to same. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the documents produced by the petitioners and hold that, the petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased Jayalinga P.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of National Insurance Co. V/s Birender, reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356, has clearly held that, "The legal representatives of the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166(1). The major married son who is also earning and not fully dependant on the deceased, would be still covered by the expression "legal representative" of the 28 MVC No.6999/2023 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.
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."
22. According to the ratio laid down in above decision, the legal representatives though not fully dependent on the deceased are entitled to claim compensation under all the heads i.e., under both conventional and non-conventional 29 MVC No.6999/2023 heads. In order to determine the compensation, the age, avocation, income, dependency, future prospects of the deceased and other conventional heads are to be ascertained.
23. The compensation towards loss of dependency: The oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners clearly establishes that, the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased and they were depending on the income of 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 30 MVC No.6999/2023 order to calculate the loss of dependency, the first step is to determine the age and income of the deceased.
i) Age and income of the deceased : The petitioners have averred that, the age of deceased as on the date of accident was 25 years. To substantiate the same, the petitioners have produced the Aadhar card of the deceased, which is marked as Ex.P.22, wherein the date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 03-04-1998. Admittedly, the accident has taken place on 25-09-2023. This clearly goes to show that, on the date of accident the age of the deceased was 25 years. The petitioners have asserted that, as on the date of accident the deceased was hale and healthy and he was working as Store Sales Executive with Quess Corp Limited and they have deputed the deceased to LG Electronics India Private Ltd., and was earning Rs.28,350/- per month and apart from salary he was also getting overtime and incentives, thus totally he was earning more than Rs.40,000/- per month. To substantiate the same, the 31 MVC No.6999/2023 petitioners have produced pay-slips, bank account statement, appointment letter, extract of muster role register of wages, which are marked as Ex.P.15 to 17, and 20 to 22. Further, they have also examined the authorised person/Assistant Manager-Compliance of Quess Corp Limited as P.W.2, to prove the avocation and income of the deceased. The P.W.2 has clearly deposed in his evidence that, the deceased Jayalinga P., was working in their company, he was appointed on 26-05-2022 and he had worked till 25-09-2023 and he was drawing salary of Rs.29,335/- per month. Further, as per the Ex.P.15 and 22 - slips, for the month of August-2023, the gross salary of the deceased is Rs.28,350/- per month. After deducting professional tax of Rs.200/- per month, the net salary of the deceased will be Rs.28,150/- per month. Therefore, the income of the deceased as on the date of accident is held at Rs.28,150/- per month. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased Jayalinga is held as Rs.3,37,800/-. 32 MVC No.6999/2023
ii) As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the legal heirs of deceased are also entitled for future prospects of the deceased, though he was not a permanent employee, as on the date of death. Since the deceased was aged about 25 years and was not a permanent employee, the future prospects would be 40% of her income, which comes to Rs.1,35,120/-. Therefore, the future prospects of the deceased is held as Rs.1,35,120/-. If this income is added to the notional income, then it comes to Rs.4,72,920/- per annum. Further, the annual income of the deceased comes within the exemption limits as per Income Tax Act.
iii) The deduction of personal expenses and calculating the multiplier: The family of the deceased consist of 4 persons i.e., petitioners No.1 to 4. The total number of dependents of the deceased are four. Therefore, deduction towards the personal expenses of deceased is 33 MVC No.6999/2023 taken as 1/4th of the total income, which comes to Rs.1,18,230/-. After deducting 1/4th out of total income, towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the annual income of the deceased is held as Rs.3,54,690/-.
iv) As on the date of death, the age of the deceased was 25 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.3,54,690/- x 18 = Rs.63,84,420/-.
v) Compensation under conventional heads: In the present case, admittedly the petitioner No.1 is wife, petitioner No.2 is daughter and petitioners No.3 and 4 are parents of deceased Jayalinga P. Hence, the petitioners No.1 to 4 are entitled for compensation under the head of spousal, parental and filial consortium. As per the guidelines 34 MVC No.6999/2023 laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the compensation under the following conventional heads is awarded:
a) Loss of estate - Rs. 15,000/-
b) Loss of consortium - Rs. 40,000/- each
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 spousal, parental and filial consortium comes to Rs.48,000/- each to petitioners No.1 to 4 and funeral expenses comes to Rs.18,000/-.
24. While answering Issue No.1, for the reasons stated therein, this Court has already held that, there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased to the 35 MVC No.6999/2023 extent of 20% in the cause of accident. As such, the petitioners are entitled for only 80% out of total compensation amount, under different heads as follows:
Sl. Head of
Amount/Rs
No. Compensation
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 63,84,420-00
2. Loss of spousal, parental Rs. 1,92,000-00
and filial consortium
3. Loss of estate Rs. 18,000-00
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000-00
Total Rs. 66,12,420-00
80% of total Rs. 52,89,936-00
Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation of Rs.52,89,936/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petition till its realization.
25. Liability: Admittedly, as on the date of accident the respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AL- 3694. As per Ex.R.1 insurance policy bearing No.1- 2WG36MPPP400, policy No.MV440401, issued by the 36 MVC No.6999/2023 respondent No.2, in respect of offending lorry bearing No.KA-01-AL-3694 was valid from 22-07-2023 to 21-07-2024. As such, the said policy was valid as on the date of accident i.e. 25-09-2023. Further, as per Ex.R.4 driving licence extract of the driver of the offending vehicle by name Ramaiah N. S/o Nagappa, was holding driving licence to drive non- transport vehicle from 10-05-2019 to 09-05-2024 and transport vehicle from 21-05-2022 to 20-05-2027. As such, as on the date of accident he was holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. Further, the evidence placed on record by the petitioners clearly establishes that, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.KA-01-AL-3694, the said accident has taken place and the deceased Jayalinga P., 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 said vehicle. The respondent 37 MVC No.6999/2023 No.2 being the insurer of the vehicle has to indemnify the respondent No.1. Therefore, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. However, the primary liability is on the respondent No.2 to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, for the above stated reasons, holding that, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.52,89,936/- from the respondent No.2, 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.
26. Issue No.3: In view of the above findings, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.52,89,936/- (Rupees fifty two lakh eighty nine thousand nine 38 MVC No.6999/2023 hundred and thirty six only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the above compensation amount to the petitioners. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fastened on respondent No.2 - Insurance Company 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 - Wife - 25% Petitioner No.2 - Daughter - 25% Petitioner No.3 - Father - 25% Petitioner No.4 - Mother - 25% Out of total compensation amount awarded in favour of petitioners No.1, 3 and 4, 40% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in their names as fixed 39 MVC No.6999/2023 deposit in any nationalized bank for the period of three years with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining 60% amount with proportionate interest shall be released in their favour, through e-payment on proper identification and verification.
The entire compensation amount awarded in favour of petitioner No.2, with proportionate interest shall be deposited in her name as fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till she attains the age of majority.
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 8 th day of January, 2026) (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners P.W.1: Sushma Sheelavantar W/o Late Jayalinga P. 40 MVC No.6999/2023 P.W.2: Chandrashekhar M. S/o Mahadevaswamy P.W.3: Charles Thomas S/o P.C. Thomas Documents marked on behalf of petitioners Ex.P.1: True copy of F.I.R.
Ex.P.2: True copy of First Information Statement
Ex.P.3: True copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.4: True copy of Sketch
Ex.P.5: True copy of Post-mortem Report
Ex.P.6: True copy of Inquest
Ex.P.7: True copy of MVA Report
Ex.P.8: True copy of Charge-sheet
Ex.P.9 & Notarized copy of Aadhar Cards of
13: petitioners No.1 to 4 and deceased
Ex.P.14: Notarized copy of Marriage Certificate
Ex.P.15 & Pay Slips (total 2)
16:
Ex.P.17: Bank Account Statement
Ex.P.18: Authorization Letter
Ex.P.19: Notarized copy of Identity Card of P.W.3
Ex.P.20: Appointment Letter
Ex.P.21: Extract of Muster Role Register of Wages
(total 6)
Ex.P.22: Pay Slips (total 3)
41 MVC No.6999/2023
Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents R.W.1: S. Sampath S/o Srinivas R.W.2: Pushpa Laxman Kangralkar R.W.3: Raghavendra B.R. S/o B. Rangappa Documents marked on behalf of respondents Ex.R.1: Digital Signed copy of Insurance Policy Ex.R.2: Vehicle Particulars Ex.R.3: Application Reference Slip Ex.R.4: Downloaded copy of Driving Licence Extract of Ramaiah Ex.R.5: Authorization Letter Ex.R.6: True copy of Insurance Policy Ex.R.7: F.S.L. Report (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.