Bangalore District Court
Swamy.K vs Tata Aig Gen Ins Co Ltd on 17 December, 2025
KABC020170062022
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU. (SCCH-_25)
-: PRESENT:-
PRESENT: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA. R,
B.A.L, LL.B.,
XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF DECEMBER 2025
MVC No.3050/2022
PETITIONER/S: Sri.K.Swamy since dead
Rep. by his Lrs.
1 (a) Nagalakshmi V.,
W/O late K Swamy,
Aged about 51 years,
(b) Mohan Kumar. P.S,
S/O late K Swamy,
Aged about 33 years,
(c) Uma Maheshwari. P.S,
D/o Late K Swamy,
Aged about 30 years,
All are permanently
R/at, No.1184,
Behind Anitha Convent Road,
NES Extension, Ward No. 04,
Malavalli Town, Malavalli,
Mandya District.
Present R/at, No.10, 3rd floor,
2nd main road,
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.3050/2022
Deepanjali Nagar, Mysuru
road,Bengaluru -560026
(By Sri. Ravikumar.P.M,
Advocate/s)
V/S
RESPONDENTS: 1. The Branch Manager,
TATA AIG GENARAL
INSURANCE CO.LTD,
No. 69, 2nd floor,
JP (& Devi Jambukeswar,
Arcade, Millers road,
Bengaluru - 52.
(Policy No.0162659250000 -
22.11.2021 TO 21.11.2022)
(Smt. Muralidhar Negavar.,
Advocate.)
2. M. Shireesha
(Propraiter),
Sri Kukke Subramanya
Traders, #13, 4th Main road,
N T Pet,
Bengaluru - 560002.
(Owner of TATA SIGNA-4923.5
Goods Carrying Vehicle bearing
Reg.No.KA-51-AA-9759)
(Exparte)
JUDGMENT
This judgment arise out of claim petition filed by the claimant against respondents under SCCH-25 3 MVC No.3050/2022 Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "Act") praying for awarding compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 04.04.2022 at about 07.45am.
However, during the trial the petitioner passed away the Lrs have brought on record.
2. The case of the claimants in nutshell is that:
On 04.04.02022 in the morning the deceased petitioner K.Swamy was going to his house from his work place Shrusti Apartment, Rajarajeshwari Nagar to Deepanjali Nagar after finished his nigh shift duty by his Honda Activa 3G Scooter bearing Reg.No.KA- 11-EF-6110 slowly, steadily, cautiously and following traffic Rules and regulations, when he reached near RR Arched circle at 7.45am and while crossing the traffic signal, a Lorry bearing No.KA-51-AA-9759 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life, without following the traffic rules and regulations and dashed to the deceased K.Swamy's Scooter. Due to impact, he fell down on the road along with scooter and he and his Scooter went under the Lorry and sustained grievous SCCH-25 4 MVC No.3050/2022 injuries. Immediately after the accident petitioner was taken to Chennappa Hospital, Bangalore, provided first aid treatment and thereafter he was shifted to Rajarajeshwari Medical College and Hospital, Bangalore wherein he was treated as an inpatient from 04.04.2022 to 05.05.2022, underwent surgery and discharged with advice. So far he has spent Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical and conveyance expenses. After the accident the deceased K.Swamy was bed ridden for a period of 2 months. Till today he is taking treatment in his home. During the treatment at home in the month of July the deceased K.Swamy got severe pain in his abdomen with fever and on 25.07.2022 got admitted to Dr.Sudarshan Surgical & Gastro Care at Mandya, treated therein and got treatment and thereafter again he admitted to the same problem in Spandana Hospital (Multispecialty Hospital) at Mandya on 08.08.2022 and he discharged on 13.08.2022 with doctor advise, that time he was diagnosed to have CLD WITH PHTN WITH ASCITES. after he was discharged as per the doctor advise he was taking the medicine thereafter again on 16.05.2023 the deceased K Swamy was admitted in Dr.Sudarshan surgical & Gastro care at Mandya and got treated for his abdomen problem and thereafter he started SCCH-25 5 MVC No.3050/2022 suffering from Generalized weakness and also fever, breathing difficulty and vomiting hence on 31.05.2023 again he got admitted to the Spandana Hospital at Mandya and he discharged on 01.06.2023 with advise to take medicine as per prescription that time he was diagnosed Chronic Liver disease portal HTM Anen pancytopenia.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that, thereafter the deceased K.Swamy on 22.06.2023 again he got treated in Tara super Specialty Poly Clinic at Mandya after perused the report then doctor referred the deceased K Swamy to Nephroplus dialysis center Beasveshwarnagar at Bengaluru as per the reference the deceased K Swamy has started to treatment on 26.06.2023 and as per the doctor advise he underwent several test and after perusal of the report the doctor advised him to take medicine, as per doctor advise the deceased K. Swamy was taking the medicine. The petitioner further submits that, when the deceased K. Swamy was under regular follow up due to swelling over both lower limbs since 2 days, dropsy since one day, again on 15.05.2024 he got admitted in Spandana Hospital at Mandya. Further after discharge from the RAJARAJESHWARI MEDICAL SCCH-25 6 MVC No.3050/2022 COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL at Bengaluru hospital he advised for dressing for his abdominal wound during that period he got severe pain in his abdomen and also fever and etc ... for that treatment on 25.07.2022 he got admitted to Dr.Sudarshan surgical & Gastro care at Mandya and got treatment and there after again he admitted for same problem in Spandana Hospital (Multispecialty Hospital) at Mandya. Later on, he has taken continuous treatment and medicine above said hospital till his death, during the treatment later on, it came to know that his kidney and liver was affected by the accident injury even though the deceased K. Swamy had taken treatment get cure for his accident injury which is occurred to his abdominal same was not cured finally he died on 18.05.2024 in the above said Hospital . The main cause for the death of K Swamy is that, only due to the consequence of the injuries sustained by him in the accident which was occurred on 4.4.2022. Thereafter, the petitioners have transport the dead from the hospital to the native place and performed the funeral and 11th day ceremony of the deceased K.Swamy. So far they have spent Rs.2,80,000/- towards transportation of dead body, funeral, outpatient treatment, food and nourishment etc., SCCH-25 7 MVC No.3050/2022
4. It is the further case of the petitioners that, prior to the date of accident, the deceased K.Swamy was hale and helathy, working as a Security Guard at Srushti Apartment Owners Welfare Association, Srinivaspura, Bangalore and earning salary of Rs.13,000/- per month. The accident in question is solely due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Lorry bearing No.KA-51-AA-9759. The Byatarayanapura Traffic Police have registered a case against the driver of the Lorry bearing No.KA-51-AA- 9759 for the offences p/u/Secs.279, 337 of IPC. The Respondent No.1 being the Insurer and the Respondent No.2 being the RC owner of the Lorry bearing No.KA-51-AA-9759 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. For the aforesaid reasons, the claimants/Lrs have prayed for awarding total compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- under various heads.
5. In pursuance of the notices, the respondent No.1 appeared and filed written statement. In spite of due service of notice, the respondent No.1 did not appear hence, placed ex- parte.
5A. The respondent No.1 has filed the written SCCH-25 8 MVC No.3050/2022 statement by denying the entire petition averments except issuance of policy in respect of the Lorry bearing No.KA-51-AA-9759 in favour of the 2 nd respondent. The policy is valid from 22.11.2021 to 21.11.2022. Further stated that, there was no nexus between the death and the injuries sustained by the deceased. It has denied the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. Further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid DL as on the date of accident. Further stated that there was no negligence on the part of the Driver of the insured vehicle in issue as he was proceeding with due care and cautious by following the traffic rules and regulations and the alleged accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased who being rider of the third party motorcycle with a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life without wearing helmet and without following the traffic rules and regulations. Further denied that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased and they are not entitled to claim any compensation. There is non compliance of Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act. It has denied the age, avocation, income, medical expenses etc., Further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive, exorbitant. Hence, the SCCH-25 9 MVC No.3050/2022 respondent No.1 prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.
6. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed for determination.
1. Whether the Lrs of petitioner prove that, the accident occurred on 04-04-2022 at 7.45am due to rash and negligent driving of drivers of Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-51-AA- 9759 and in the said accident petitioner sustained injuries and died on 18-05-2024?
2. Whether the Lrs of petitioner are entitled for Compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom?
3. What order or Award?
7. In order to prove the case, the petitioner has got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.24. During the pendency of the case, the petitioner died on 18.05.2024. Mr. Mohan Kumar P.S. - Lrs (b) of deceased petitioner K. Swamy got examined as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P.25 to P.29. He has also got examined MRO at Rajarajeshwari Medical College and Hospital as SCCH-25 10 MVC No.3050/2022 PW.3 and got marked Exs.P.30 to 32. On the other side the respondent No.1/AIG Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., got examined its Official as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1.
8. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the materials on record.
The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:
1. MAC.APP.1122/2017 & CM Appl. 46976/2017 :
National Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Meenakshi Gupta & Ors.
2.F.A.F.O.No.402/2004 : Sumitra Kaur Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
3.MFA No.4520/2006 (MV) : Sri.Jacob and Anr. Vs. The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., & Anr.
4. 2020 ACJ 1330 : Phusa Ram and Anr. Vs. Gurdev Singh and Ors.
5. 2011 ಕ. ತೀ.ವ. 1503 : New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Saraswathamma and Ors.
6. 2011 ಕ. ತೀ.ವ. 1285 : The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Padma and Ors.
7. 2009 (1) T.A.C.499 (Kar.) : Venugopal Vs. Paulson.
The counsel for the petitioners has produced the written arguments.
9. My findings to the above issues are as follows:-
SCCH-25 11 MVC No.3050/2022Issue No.1: In the affirmative, Issue No.2: Partly in the affirmative, Issue No.3: As per final order for the Following:-
REASONS
10. Issue No.1:-
During the pendency of the petition the deceased petitioner died on 18.05.2024 and his Lrs have come on record. Therefore, the claimants are required to establish that due to actionable negligence on the part of the offending vehicle the deceased petitioner had sustained grievous injuries and there is also nexus between the death and the injures suffered by the deceased in the accident.
11. In order to prove that, the petitioner has succumbed due to injuries suffered in the accident, the Lrs of petitioner have neither produced the postmortem report, the inquest mahazar of the deceased nor the medical documents pertaining to the deceased nor the second FIS nor additional charge sheet to support their claim. The petitioners have only produced FIR with complaint, charge sheet, spot sketch, spot mahazar, wound certificate, MVA report, death certificate and death summary as per Exs.P.1 to 9 and Exs.P.25 & 29. As per these SCCH-25 12 MVC No.3050/2022 documents, the accident occurred on 04.04.2022, whereas the deceased was died on 18.05.2024 i.e., almost after the lapse of 2 years 1 months 14 days from the date of accident. Ex.P.18/discharge summary of Rajarajeshwari Medical College and Hospital, Bangalore, clearly demonstrated that the doctor has referred the complaints in page No.2 as follows:
UPPER LIMB RIGHT UPPER LIMB LEFT UPPER LIMB CUT LACERATION OVER CUT LACERATION OVER BASE PALMAR SURFACE OF RIGHT OF 5TH DIGIT MEASURING 5TH DIGIT SENSATIONS ABOUT 3 CM X 1 CM, PRESENT EXTENDING FROM PALMAR SURFACE. SENSATION PRESNET Internal PAGE No.4 of Ex.P18 indicates that; the doctor has noticed that, "there is ill defined helrogenous intra muscular collection in the anterior abdominal wall with right internal oblique muscle in the lumbar region. Measuring 10X5.8X9.2CM in size apporx 200cc. Diffuse subcutaneous edema of the anterior abdominal wall. Per-portal collateral exending from the porka hepatitis to the anterior abdominal wall through a small defect on the right side of the umbilicus." In overall consideration of this document it can be inferred that the petitioner was diagnosed with "Blunt Abdoninal Trauma SCCH-25 13 MVC No.3050/2022 anterior abdominal wall haematoma with bilateral upper limb, little finger proximal phalynx fracture thrombocytopenia with cirrhosis of liver with portal hypertension k/c/o hypertensive", treated with conservatively underwent several surgeries and discharged on 05.04.2022.
12. Ex.P28 Abdomen pelivic ultrasound report indicates that " Chronic Liver parenchymal disease, abdominal varices, bilateral grade I medial renal disease." Ex.P.9/wound certificate shows that the petitioner diagnosed with "1" oval grautype skin Ab left knee joint, ½" multiple skin Ab over bottpalm darsall Bantaee of both palm little and ring finger and finger proximal phalanex fracture left palm which are grievous in nature. On perusal of Ex.P29/Death Summary issued by Mandya Multispeciality Hospital Pvt. Ltd., (Spandana Hospital) shows that the deceased petitioner was admitted on 15.05.2024 and died on 18.05.2024 and the cause of death mentioned that 1. Cardiac Arrest and 2. Wet Gangrene right foot and leg with septic shock with CLD. The medical documents produced by the petitioners have not referred about treatment for the injuries affected in road traffic accident. But, the injuries referred in the discharge summary and SCCH-25 14 MVC No.3050/2022 nature of treatment provided during hospitalization at Rajareshwari Medial college and hospital, it can be inferred that the injuries sustained by the deceased heterogeneous intramuscular collection in the anterior abdominal wall with right internal oblique muscle was caused infection to lungs and it causes Chronic Liver disease. Apart from that the discharge summary in last page, the docctor has highlighted that Medical Gastro Opinion in view of CLD, regular dressing. Though the petitioners have not conducted the post mortem of the deceased, the medical documents available on record are clearly clinches that the deceased was died due to the injuries sustained in the accident that too heterogeneous intramuscular collection in the anterior abdominal wall with right internal oblique muscle and it cause chronic Liver disease.
13. In order to prove that there was actionable negligence by the driver of the Lorry bearing bearing Reg.No.KA-51-AA-9759, the deceased petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 24. Thereafter, during the pendency of the case the petitioner died and on the death of the petitioner, the Lrs of the deceased petitioner have examined Lrs(b) as Pw.2 and got SCCH-25 15 MVC No.3050/2022 marked Exs.P.25 to 29. The details of the exhibits are given in the annexure of the judgment. Pws.1 & 2 have reiterated the petition averments with regard to alleged manner of accident. Ex.P.3 clearly shows that the charge sheet filed on 26.05.2022 is for offences u/Sec.279, 338 of IPC only showing grievous injury to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioners have not led any evidence to prove that the deceased died on account of injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore, the claim of the LRs of the deceased petitioner that the deceased died due to injuries suffered in the accident cannot be accepted and hence the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation for the death of the petitioner but only entitled to get compensation with regard to medical expenses and other expenses. Section 166 (5) of Motor Vehicle Act reads thus:
"[(5) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the right of a person to claim compensation for injury in an accident shall, upon the death of the person injured, survive to his legal representatives, irrespective of whether the cause of death is relatable to or had any nexus with the injury or not.]"SCCH-25 16 MVC No.3050/2022
So, the LRs of the deceased petitioner can prosecute the proceedings of petition filed by the deceased petitioner for the injuries sustained by him in road traffic accident.
14. On the other side, the Respondent No.1 has denied that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle and the accident caused due to the sole negligence of the petitioner himself and also denied the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and also denied the death of the petitioner stating that there is no nexus between the death and the injuries. To prove the same the respondents got examined its official as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1/Authorization letter. During the cross examination of RW.1, he has admitted that the policy was issued by their company and the policy was in existence. As on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid DL. He has denied the suggestions made by the counsel for the other side.
15. To prove the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased, they have produced notarized copy of Aadhar Cards as per Ex.P12 to show the relationship with the deceased.
SCCH-25 17 MVC No.3050/2022\
16. It is well settled position of law that the proceedings under Motor Vehicle Act are summary in nature and it is beneficial legislation and the evidence required about negligence act is sufficient if it is in the nature of preponderance of probability.
17. The contention of the insurance company that the driver of the offending Vehicle was not having valid driving license at the time of accident. The police have not led charge sheet for offense punishable under section 3 R/w 181 of Motor Vehicles Act and further the insurer had not placed any iota of evidence in this regard. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in a decision 12018 (5) SCC 656 held "24. It will be useful to advert to the dictum in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal [N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 774] , wherein it was contended by the vehicle owner that the criminal case in relation to the accident had ended in acquittal and for which reason the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act ought to be rejected. This Court negatived the said argument by observing that the nature of proof required to establish 1 Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., SCCH-25 18 MVC No.3050/2022 culpable rashness, punishable under IPC, is more stringent than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to create liability. The observation made in para 3 of the jud 80 gment would throw some light as to what should be the approach of the Tribunal in motor accident cases. The same reads thus :
"3. Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasising this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public SCCH-25 19 MVC No.3050/2022 transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their neighbor. Indeed, the State must seriously consider no-fault liability by legislation. A second aspect which pains us is the inadequacy of the compensation or undue parsimony practiced by tribunals. We must remember that judicial tribunals are State organs and Article 41 of the Constitution lays the jurisprudential foundation for State relief against accidental disablement of citizens. There is no justification for niggardliness in compensation. A third factor which is harrowing is the enormous delay in disposal of accident cases resulting in compensation, even if awarded, being postponed by several years. The States must appoint sufficient number of tribunals and the High Courts should insist upon quick disposals so that the trauma and tragedy already sustained may not be magnified by the injustice of delayed justice. Many States are unjustly indifferent in this regard."
25. In Dulcina Fernandes [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 :
(2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] , this Court examined similar situation where the evidence of claimant's eyewitness was discarded by the Tribunal and that the respondent in that case was acquitted in the SCCH-25 20 MVC No.3050/2022 criminal case concerning the accident. This Court, however, opined that it cannot be overlooked that upon investigation of the case registered against the respondent, prima facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial. The Court restated the settled principle that the evidence of the claimants ought to be examined by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied"
18. The Court cannot adopt strict liability as conducted in a criminal case to prove rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the respondent vehicle. But there should be prima-facie materials regarding rash and negligence to fix the owner and insurance company for payment of compensation. Therefore, a straight jacket formula cannot be adopted in accepting the rash and negligence on the part of driver of the insured. So, the materials on record clearly indicates that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative.SCCH-25 21 MVC No.3050/2022
19. Issue No.2:
As discussed above the Lrs of Petitioner have proved the nexus between the death and the injures suffered by the deceased in the accident, The Petitioner Nos.1a to 1c are being the wife, children of the deceased. It is contention of the petitioners that the deceased was working as as Security guard at Srushiti Apartment and earning of Rs.25,000/-. In this regard the petitioner has produced the certificate issued by said apartment owners welfare association marked at Ex.P13. On perusal of the document, the deceased was worked as Security guard from 11.07.2019 to 03.04.2022 and was drawing Rs.13,000/- as a salary. As per the claim petition age of the deceased was 65 years at the time of inception of petition but the medical document shows that the age of the petitioner was 67 years. Hence, the age of the deceased considered as 66 years and monthly income of the deceased has considered as Rs.13,000/- per month. As per Sarala Varma's case the multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 05. The petitioners are depending on the income and day to day affairs/activities of the deceased. If there are 2 to 3 dependents, then 1/3rd of the income has to deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Then the total SCCH-25 22 MVC No.3050/2022 income of the deceased would come Rs.8,666/- (Rs.13,000/- - Rs.4334/- = Rs.8,666/-). The loss of dependency is calculated as below. Rs.8.666/- (monthly income) x 12 x 05 (multiplier) =Rs.5,19,960/-. This is just and proper compensation under the head of loss of dependency.
LOSS OF ESTATE
20. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Pranay Sethi case in case of death in the maximum the Court can award Rs.16,500/- in lump sum under the head of loss of estate.
FUNERAL EXPENSES
21. In view of the Pranay Sethi's case this tribunal has no option but to award Rs.16,500/- under this head. Except these heads the claimants are not entitled for any compensation.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in a judgment reported in 2(2018) 18 SCC 130 has held in paragraph No.21 that "A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) dealt with the various heads under which the 2 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram SCCH-25 23 MVC No.3050/2022 compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium. In legal parlance Consortium is a compendious term which encompasses Spousal Consortium;
Parental consortium and filial consortium. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse."
21 1 "Spousal Consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of Company, Society, co operation, affection and aid of the other in every conjugal relation"
21 2 " Parental Consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training."13,50,180 21 3 " Filial Consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of the Child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock, agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit."
22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships.
SCCH-25 24 MVC No.3050/2022Modern jurisdictions world over have recognized that the value of a Child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore, permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child".
23. The Petitioner No.1 is being wife and petitioner No.2 and 3 are being children of the deceased are entitled for '"Spousal Consortium' and 'Parental Consortium' respectively. Hence a sum of Rs.1,32,000/- (Rs.44,000/- each) is awarded under this head.
24. Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines.:
The Petitioners have stated that they have spent Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charges etc.. In this regard they have produced medical bills and prescriptions as per Exs.P.11 and 12 for a sum of Rs.52,466/- and at Ex.P.23 for a sum of Rs.4,627/-. There is no contrary evidence to these documents. As such, the petitioners are entitled for total amount SCCH-25 25 MVC No.3050/2022 of Rs.57,093/- under the heads of medical expenses.
Therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation under the following heads.
Sl. Name of the Head Awarded
No. Compensation
01. Loss of dependency Rs.5,19,960=00
02. Towards loss of estate Rs.16,500=00
03. Towards Funeral Rs.16,500=00
expenses
04. Loss of Consortium Rs.1,32,000=00
05. Medical Expenses. Rs.57,093=00
TOTAL Rs.7,42,053=00
25. The next question is the liability to pay the said compensation. As I referred above the accident was occurred due rash and negligent riding by the rider of the offending vehicle. It is not the case of the insurer that the insurance was not in force at the time of accident. Hence respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The respondent No.1 has to indemnify the respondent No.2 and liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.SCCH-25 26 MVC No.3050/2022
26. APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION:
The claimants Nos.1a to 1C are are being the wife and chidren of the deceased. Hence, they are entitled for 60:20:20 ratio respectively in the total compensation with accrued interest. On deposit of compensation, the claimants Nos.1 to 3 are entitled to withdraw 50% of their share and remaining share shall be invested as FD in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years. Hence, I answer issue No.2 partly in affirmatively.
27. Issue No.3: As per following ORDER The claim petition filed by claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is allowed in part.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.7,42,053/-
(Rupees Seven Lakhs Forty Two Thousands Fifty Three Only) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation to the SCCH-25 27 MVC No.3050/2022 claimants and directed to deposit the same within 60 days from the date of this judgment.
The LR1(a) to LR(c) are entitled for 60:40:40 ratio respectively in the total compensation with accrued interest.
On deposit of compensation, LR1(a) to LR(c) are entitled to withdraw 50% of their share and remaining share shall be invested as FD in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years.
Advocates fee of Rs.1,000/- fixed. Draw the award accordingly.
(Directly typed and computerized by the stenographer, corrected by me and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 17th day of December, 2025).
(Raghavendra. R.) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined for Petitioner:
PW.1 Sri.K.Swamy
PW.2 Sri. Mohan Kumar.P.S
PW.3 Sri. Dhananjay Kumar G.V
SCCH-25 28 MVC No.3050/2022
List of Documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P1 FIR Ex.P2 Complaint Ex.P3 Charge Sheet Ex.P4 Spot Sketch Ex.P5 Spot Mahazar
Ex.P6 &7 Notice and reply u/Sec.133 of MV Act Ex.P8 IMV Report Ex.P9 Wound Certificate Ex.P10 Certified copy of CC No.3401/2022 Ex.P11 Medical bills 65 in nos for Rs.52,466/-
Ex.P12 Medical Prescription 15 in nos
Ex.P13 Certificate dated 10.05.2022 issued by the owner
of the Srushti Apartment
Ex.P14 Vehicle repair bill
Ex.P15 Photographs 8 in nos
Ex.P16 Damaged Vehicle photos 5 in nos. and CD
Ex.P17 X-rays 4 in nos
Ex.P18 Discharge Summary
Ex.P19 DL Extract of petitioner
Ex.P20 Notarized copy of RC (compared with original and
same is returned)
Ex.P21 Online copy of Insurance policy
Ex.P22 Notarized copy of Employee ID
Ex.P23 Medical bills 8 in nos
Ex.P24 Video CD with Certificate u/Sec.65B of
Indian Evidence Act
SCCH-25 29 MVC No.3050/2022
Ex. P25 Death certificate of petitioner Ex. P26 Medical bills 2 in nos Ex. P27 Medical prescriptions 8 in nos Ex. P28 Lab reports 6 in nos Ex. P29 Death summary Ex. P30 Authorization Letter Ex. P31 Attested copy of MLC register Ex. P32 Case sheet List of Witnesses examined for Respondent/s:
RW.1 Sri. Haripriya.M Pisharody List of documents exhibited for Respondent:
Ex.R1 Authorization Letter
(RAGHAVENDRA. R.)
XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT,
BANGALORE
Digitally signed by
RAMACHANDRAPPA
RAMACHANDRAPPA RAGHAVENDRA
RAGHAVENDRA
Date: 2025.12.20
17:35:05 +0530