Bangalore District Court
Veerappa N vs Ramana T on 17 February, 2026
KABC020135032024
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES BENGALURU
(SCCH-18)
Dated: This the 17th day of February, 2026
Present: DHANESH MUGALI
B.Com., LL.B.,(Spl.)
III ADL. JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.2135/2024
Petitioners 1. Sri.N.Veerappa
S/o Ramappa
Aged about 48 years
2. Smt.N.Shyamalamma
W/o Sri.N.Veerappa
Aged about 46 years
3. Kum.N.Reddy Rani
S/o Sri.N.Veerappa
Aged about 20 years
All are R/at No.2-83-2
Upnelli Malenatham
Ramasamudram,
Chitoor Dist-517247.
(By Pleader Sri.K.N.Harish
Babu)
SCCH-18 2 MVC 2135/2024
V/s
Respondents 1. Sri.R.Ramana
S/o T.Venkatappa
Miniki, Ramasamudram
Annamayya-517417,
Chitoor Dist. (A.P.)
(Exparte)
2. The Branch Manager-claims
M/s Chola MS General Insurance
C o., Ltd.,
No.135/5, 2nd floor,
Near Dhalmia Circle,
15th cross, JP Nagar 3rd phase
Bangalore-560007
(By Pleader Sri.K.V.Govardhan)
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of N.Reddy Ajay in a road traffic accident.
The brief facts of the petitioners' case are as under :
2. That on 16.02.2024 at about 8.30 a.m. when N.Reddy Ajay was riding the scooter bearing reg.No.AP-40-Q-2392 from Kudur Cheemanapalli to his house, near Busireddy agriculture field on Kuduruchemanpalli, Uppunelli dinne, on the left SCCH-18 3 MVC 2135/2024 side of the road, at that time, driver of the Tractor bearing reg.No.AP-40-M-2251 was driving in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly stopped in the road without any signal, hence the deceased hit the back side of the tractor and caused the accident, due to impact N.Reddy Ajay fell down and sustained severe fatal injuries and immediately he was shifted to Government hospital, Punganur, but he died on the way to the hospital.
3. It is further stated that, prior to the accident, the deceased was hale, healthy, aged about 19 years and was doing Coolie work and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month and contributing entire income towards the welfare of the family. Due to death of the deceased, petitioners lost their love and put them into great agony, pain frustration and deep mental stress.
4. It is contended that, the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the driver of the Tractor bearing reg.No.AP-40-M-2251. In this regard, Ramasamudram Police have registered the case against the driver of the offending vehicle in Crime No.45/2024. As such, the respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Hence, this petition.SCCH-18 4 MVC 2135/2024
5. In response to the notice, the respondent No.1 did not appear before this court, remained absent, hence he was placed exparte. The respondent No.2 has appeared through its counsel and filed written statement.
6. In the written statement, the respondent No.2 has contended that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further, this respondent has admitted about issuance of insurance policy in respect of Tractor bearing reg.No.AP-40-M-2251 with restriction its liability subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It is the defence of the respondent No.2 that the accident was not occurred due to fault of the driver of offending vehicle and offending vehicle is not at all involved in the accident, falsely implicated in this case. It is also contention of the respondent that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle as on the date of accident. Further denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased and relationship between deceased with the petitioners.
Ultimately, contended that the claim of the petitioners is highly excessive, exorbitant and arbitrary. With all these main grounds, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent.
SCCH-18 5 MVC 2135/20247. On the basis of the rival pleadings of both the parties, this tribunal has framed the following issues:
ISSUES
1) Whether the petitioners prove that N.Reddy Ajay died in a motor vehicle accident which was taken place on 16.02.2024 at about 8.40 a.m., at near Busireddy Agriculture Fields, Kudurucheemanapalli, Uppunelli Dinne, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor bearing registration No.AP-40-M-2251?
2) Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal heir and were depending upon the income of the deceased?
3) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, at what rate and from whom?
4) What order or award?
8. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P13.
9. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 examined J.Deepa Chand, Junior Assistant, RTO, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh as RW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.R1. The respondent No.2 got SCCH-18 6 MVC 2135/2024 examined its Deputy Legal Manager as RW2 and got marked Ex.R2 and Ex.R3.
10. Heard the arguments and perused the materials available on record.
11. My findings to the above issues as follows:
Issue No.1: Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.2: In the Affirmative Issue No.3: Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.4: As per final order for the following:
R E A S O N S ISSUE No.1:-
12. It is the specific case of the petitioners that, due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the Tractor bearing reg.No.AP-40-M-2251, the alleged accident had taken place. Consequently, N.Reddy Ajay died in the said accident. As such, the petitioners have filed this claim petition against the respondents.
13. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has contended that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the deceased and not on SCCH-18 7 MVC 2135/2024 the part of the driver of the Tractor bearing reg.No.AP-40-M-2251.
14. On the basis of rival contention of both the parties, first of all, the petitioners have to place satisfactory evidence on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities against the rider of the offending vehicle in question.
15. The petitioners in order to prove their case, petitioner No.1 by name N.Veerappa got examined himself as PW1. In his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit, he has reiterated the averments made in the petition. The petitioner in support of his oral evidence has relied upon the police documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. Ex.P1-true copy of the F.I.R. in Crime No.45/2024 of Ramasamudram Police Station, Ex.P2- First information statement, Ex.P3-PM report, Ex.P4-inquest report, Ex.P5-Rough sketch, Ex.P6- IMV report, Ex.P7-charge sheet.
16. To disprove the negligence of the driver of tractor, the respondent No.2 has examined Junior Assistant RTO, Chitoor and got marked Ex.R1. On perusal of Ex.R1 it appears that deceased N.Reddy Ajay was not having driving licence to drive Scooter as on the date of accident. Further, respondent No.2 SCCH-18 8 MVC 2135/2024 examined it legal manager as RW.2. RW.2 in his chief examination has reiterated the averments made in the written statement.
17. On perusal of the police documents it could be seen that, based upon the first information statement given by Veerappa, father of deceased, the S.H.O. of Ramasamudram police have registered the case against the driver of the Tractor bearing reg.No.AP-40-M-2251 for the offences punishable under Sections 304(A) of I.P.C. Upon investigation, the I.O. has filed charge sheet against driver of the Tractor alleging that he has committed the offences punishable under section 304(A) of IPC.
18. On perusal of Ex-P5 Rough sketch, it appears that the deceased was proceeding on a Scooter, at that time, driver of the offending vehicle Tractor bearing reg.No.AP-40-M-2251 came from Kuduru Cheemanahalli to his village, near Busireddy Agriculture fields on Kudurucheemanapalli Uppunelli dinne came in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly stopped on the road without any signal and deceased hit the back side of the said tractor, due to said accident, deceased fell down and sustained injuries and died on the way to hospital. It appears that driver of the tractor should have taken SCCH-18 9 MVC 2135/2024 care while stopping the tractor then accident would not have happened. Further Ex-P5 and 6 speak about manner of death of injured N.Reddy Ajay. However, deceased was not having driving licence to drive the Scooter at the time of accident. Further deceased was aged about 19 years. If deceased could have maintained safe distance then accident would not have happened. It appears that deceased was also contributed some extent to the accident.
19. In the light of the evidence placed by petitioners and respondent No.2, I am of the view that, the accident was occurred on the part of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor bearing reg.No.AP-40-M-2251 and also some extent by the deceased in the ratio of 80:20 respectively, and in the said accident, N.Reddy Ajay succumbed to the injuries. Accordingly, I am answering the Issue No.1 partly in the Affirmative.
ISSUE No.2 and 3:
20. Now coming to the point of quantum of compensation for which, the petitioners are entitled is concerned, every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person, due to a motor vehicle accident, should have remedy for realization of compensation. Since in the death case, the legal heirs SCCH-18 10 MVC 2135/2024 are the claimants. In the case on hand, the relationship of deceased with the petitioners is not in dispute. At the same time, the documents produced by the petitioners, to prove the relationship with the deceased marked at Ex.P9 to 12 i.e., Aadhar cards of deceased and the petitioners have not been disputed by the other side. The recitals of the above documents clearly speak about the relationship between the petitioners and the deceased.
21. Another aspect to be considered herein that, on going through the age particulars of the petitioner, mentioned in the cause title of the petition, reflected that, the petitioners are the parents and sister of deceased, in their middle age, lost their son, brother as well as the care of their son, who was the backbone of the family. The respondents herein have not produced documents on record, to show the independent economic status of the petitioners. By taking into consideration of all these factors along with the evidence of PW1, it is crystal clear that, the petitioners are the dependents to the deceased during his lifetime.
22. The petitioners herein, have placed Aadhar card of the deceased at Ex.P9 to prove the actual age of the deceased as on the date of the accident. On going through the said document, the date of SCCH-18 11 MVC 2135/2024 birth of the deceased has been mentioned as 1.1.2007. The accident occurred on 16.02.2024. Therefore, as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 17 years. For his age, multiplier '18' is applicable as per the ratio in "Sarala Verma"
Case.
23. In connection with the work of the deceased, in the main petition and also in the evidence of PW1 stated that, deceased was working as a Coolie and drawing salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. The petitioners have not produced any document to prove the avocation and income of the deceased. Hence, it is apt to consider the notional income of the deceased as Rs.16,500/- per month.
24. Another point to be taken in to consideration herein that, as per the petition, the deceased was a bachelor, for deduction of the personal and living expenses, the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarala Verma Case at para No.14 is to be considered.
25. Apart from this, it is also relevant to discuss, that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in, 2018 SAR (Civil) 81. National Insurance SCCH-18 12 MVC 2135/2024 Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi and others, " It was observed that, "While determining the income, an addition of 50 per cent of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30 per cent, if the age of the deceased was between 40 and 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 and 60 years, the addition should be 15 per cent. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40 per cent of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 year. An addition of 25 per cent where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years. An addition of 25 per cent where the deceased was between the age of 40 and 50 years and 10 per cent where the deceased was between the age of 50-60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. "
26. Having considered the above as per law laid down in the above case. In the light of the above proposition, in the case on hand, since the deceased was a bachelor, deduction towards personal and living expenses out of the total compensation is to be considered. In the present case, deceased was aged about 17 years, as on the date of the accident. For SCCH-18 13 MVC 2135/2024 this age multiplier "18" is applicable. And by relying on the aforesaid principle laid down in the Pranay Sethi's case with respect to the age of the deceased and also on going through main petition averments it is evident that, the petitioner herein as on the date of the accident, was not having permanent job. As such by taking into consideration of the nature of the employment mentioned in the petition, I am of the view that, 40% income of the deceased has to be taken into account towards future prospects. Therefore, by considering the earning of the deceased as Rs.16,500/- per month. And Rs.1,98,000/- per year. Along with this, the future prospects of 40% is to be taken in to consideration, then the annual income of the deceased, comes to (Rs.1,98,000+79,200)= Rs.2,77,200/-. And 50% has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses in the income of the deceased. Thus net loss income comes to Rs.1,38,600/- (Rs.2,77,200- Rs.1,38,600). This income has to be multiplied by multiplier "18". In toto it comes to Rs.24,94,800/- .
27. Apart from this aspect, in connection with the loss of estate, consortium and with respect to the funeral expenses to calculate the quantum of the compensation under the aforesaid heads, it is relevant to note herein the following authority;
SCCH-18 14 MVC 2135/20242018 SAR (Civil) 81. National Insurance Company Limited. V/s Pranay Sethi and others, The Hon'ble Apex Court discussed various aspects in connection with the claim petition filed by the claimants for compensation. And also observed that while determining the claim petition, the reasonable figures on conventional heads, viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amount should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
28. By relying upon the above said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the amount of Rs.16,500/- is awarded under the head loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- is awarded towards funeral expenses and also by placing reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 between Magma General Insurance Company Limited v/s Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others, the amount of Rs.44,000/- is awarded to the petitioners No.1 to 3 under the head loss of consortium.
29. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation under the following heads.
SCCH-18 15 MVC 2135/2024
Compensation heads Compensation
Amount
Towards loss of Rs.24,94,800 -00
dependency
Towards loss of Rs. 1,32,000-00
consortium
Towards loss of estate Rs. 16,500-00
Towards funeral & Rs. 16,500-00
obsequies ceremony
expenses
Total Rs.26,59,800-00
30. Accordingly, the petitioners herein are entitled to get total compensation of Rs.26,59,800/- (Rupees twenty six lakhs fifty nine thousand eight hundred only), along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum, as per the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in MFA No. 103557/2016, Between Sri Ram General Insurance Company Limited V/S. Lakshmi And Others dated. 20.03.2018. And MFA No.30131/2019 dated.12.5.2020 from the date of petition till its realisation.
LIABILITY:-
31. As regards the liability is concerned, as already discussed in issue No.1 that, the accident occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part SCCH-18 16 MVC 2135/2024 of the driver of Tractor bearing reg.No.AP-40-M-
2251.
32. Further as per the records insurance policy of the Tractor bearing reg.No.AP-40-M-2251 was valid 01.08.2023 to 31.07.2024. The alleged accident had taken place on 16.02.2024.
33. In the light of the discussion held above, I am of the view that, As such, the respondent No.2 being the insurance company is liable to indemnify the respondent No.1. Hence, respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation at the ratio of 80% with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till its realization and remaining 20% contributory negligence is fixed on the deceased. Accordingly, I am answering the issue No.2 is in Affirmative and issue No.3 is partly in Affirmative.
ISSUE No.4:
`34. In view of my due discussions on Issue Nos.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R The claim petition filed by the petitioners U/S 166 of MV Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
SCCH-18 17 MVC 2135/2024
The petitioners are entitled for
compensation of Rs.26,59,800/-
(Rupees twenty six lakhs fifty nine
thousand eight hundred only), along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners at the ratio of 80% with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization within two months from the date of this order. and remaining 20% contributory negligence is fixed on the deceased.
After deposit of the compensation amount together with interest, the petitioner No.1 & 2 are entitled the share of 40% each and petitioner No.3 is entitled the share of 20%.
Out of the compensation amount together with interest, 40% of petitioner No.1 and 2 share shall be deposited in any Nationalized/Scheduled bank of their choice for a period of 3 years and remaining 60% of their share shall be SCCH-18 18 MVC 2135/2024 released to them through due process of law.
After deposit of the compensation amount together with interest, share of petitioner No.3 shall be released in her favour through E-payment by observing due process of law.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-. [ Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 17th day of February 2026).
(DHANESH MUGALI) III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER MACT & ACJM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE:
List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
PW1 N.Veerappa List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR
Ex.P2 & True copy of First information
Ex.P2(a) statement and its translated copy
SCCH-18 19 MVC 2135/2024
Ex.P3 True copy of PM report
Ex.P4 & True copy of Inquest report and its
Ex.P4(a) translated copy
Ex.P5 & True copy of rough sketch and its
Ex.P5(a) translated copy
Ex.P6 True copy of IMV report
Ex.P7 True copy of charge sheet
Ex.P8 Notarized copy of death certificate
Ex.P9 to 12 Notarized copies of 4
Aadhar cards
Ex.P13 Notarized copy of family ration card
List of witnesses examined on respondent' side:
RW.1 J. Deep Chand RW.2 Santhosh
List of documents exhibited on respondent' side:
Ex.R1 Letter issued by Additional Licensing
Authority Chittoor
Ex.R2 Authorization letter
Ex.R3 Insurance Policy
III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
MEMBER MACT & ACJM,
BENGALURU.