Bangalore District Court
Asha B.S vs Umesh K.B on 16 June, 2025
KABC020263422021
BEFORE THE MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, IV ADDITIONAL JUDGE OF SMALL CAUSE
COURT AND A.C.J.M., AT BENGALURU (SCCH-6)
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JUNE - 2025
Present: Smt.Chetana S.F.,
B.A., LL.B.,
IV ADDL. SCJ & ACJM
MEMBER -MACT, BENGALURU.
M.V.C No.4494/2022
Petitioner:
1. ASHA B.S.
W/o Late Devaraju K.G.
Aged about 36 years
2: Kumari.JHANAVI D.
D/o Late Devaraju K.G.
Aged about 16 years
3: ANUSHKA SHETTY D.
D/o Late Devaraju K.G.
Aged about 6 years
Petitioner No.2 and 3 are minor in age
hence the represented by their mother
as natural guardian and next friend
Petitioner No.1 to 3 are residing at
No.W18, 3rd sector, HMT colony,
Jalahalli
Bangalore,
Karnataka-560013
SCCH-6 2 MVC. No.4494/2021
4. Smt.Siddamma
W/o Late Govindashetty
Aged about 69 years
petitioner No.4 residing at KH Hall,
Kurubara Bodihalu
Chikkamagalur town,
Chickkamagalur
Karnataka-577146
VERSUS
Opponent:
1. Sri.UMESH K.B.
S/o Boregowda
Aged about major
R/AT NO.128,
Doddanagamangala,
Huskur post, Anekal Taluk,
BENGALURU-560100.
(RC owner of the bus bearing No.KA-13-C-0899)
2: The Regional Manager,
Iffco Tokio Gen.Insurance company Ltd.,
Sri.Shanthi towers
4th floor, Office at No.141
3rd main,
East of NGEF layout
Kasturinagar
Bengaluru-560043.
(Policy NO.MG 206341
Policy period from 6-10-2020 to 5-10-2021)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocate for Petitioner: Sri.N. SHIVARAM
Advocate for respondent No.1-Exparte
Advocate for respondent No.2: Sri.S.R.Murthy
SCCH-6 3 MVC. No.4494/2021
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed by the petitioners under Sec.166 of M.V Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of Devaraju caused in a road traffic accident.
2. The facts leading to the filing of top noted petition are that on 2-9-2021 at about 11.40 p.m. when Devaraju proceeding as pedestrian at Tumkur NH 4 service road, near Chokkasandra junction on the left side of the road, near Soundarya hotel Chokkasandra, driver of the bus bearing No.KA-13-C-0899 came with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased. Due to impact, Devaraju fell down and bus ran over the deceased and Devaraju died on the spot. Immediately he was shifted to Sapthagiri Institute of Medical sciences and Research centre, Chokkasandra, Bangalore wherein post mortem was conducted, thereafter the deadbody was handed over to the petitioner and conducted funeral and obsequies for which petitioners spent Rs.2 lakhs. Due to death of Devaraju, petitioners lost the love and affection and also earning SCCH-6 4 MVC. No.4494/2021 member of the family. Hence pays to award compensation of Rs.90 lakhs from the respondents.
3. After service of notice to respondents, the respondent No.1 remained exparte. The respondent No.2 filed written statement wherein contended that there is a violation of Section 134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act. The driver of the bus was not holding driving licence. The respondent No.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and provision of the MV Act by entrusting his bus to driver who did not possess without valid and effective DL at the time of accident and without permit. The deceased Devaraju was solely responsible for the accident. As per FIR and sketch and panchanama clearly shows that unknown vehicle dashed to deceased Devaraju and police have filed false charge sheet against the owner of the bus. Hence prays to dismiss the petition.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings this tribunal has framed the following issues :
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased Devaraju K.G.M. S/o Govinda Shetty sustained SCCH-6 5 MVC. No.4494/2021 grievous injury in an accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing No.KA-13-C-0899 on 2-9-2021 at about 11.40 p.m. at NH 4 Tumkur service road, near Chokkasandra junction, Bangalore he succumbed to the said injury?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal representative of the deceased ?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4. What order or award ?
5. The Petitioner No.1 got examined herself as PW.1 and also got examined two witnesses as PW-2 and 3 got marked Ex-P1 to 47 documents on behalf of the petitioners.
The respondent No.2 got examined its legal executive as RW-1 and got marked Ex-R1.
6. Arguments were addressed on both side.
7. Perused the entire materials placed on record. My answers to the above issues are as follows :-
Issue No.1 : 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 :SCCH-6 6 MVC. No.4494/2021
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1 : In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and examined Assistant in-charge supervisor of BMTC as PW-2, Investigation Officer as PW-3 and got marked Ex-P1 to Ex- P24 i.e., FIR, spot mahazar, rough sketch, 133 notice, reply notice, inquest report, PM report, IMV report, charge sheet, salary slip, aadhaar cards.
9. On the other hand, respondent No.2 seriously disputed the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and contended that accident has been taken place due to the rash and negligence of the deceased himself. Further it was argued by the respondent No.2 that as per the petitioner one private bus has hit the deceased and soon after the accident, the bus has run away and the petitioners in order to claim the compensation has falsely implicated the offending vehicle. In support of their contention, respondent has examined Legal executive of the said insurance company as RW-1 and got marked Ex-R1. In the line of the arguments, if the evidence SCCH-6 7 MVC. No.4494/2021 and materials are perused, admittedly as argued by the counsel for the respondent No.1, it is the case of the hit and run. Soon after the accident, the bus had run away from the spot. Thereafter the petitioner has lodge the complaint against the bus which caused the accident. Even in the complaint, petitioner has not stated about the number of the bus. Based on the complaint jurisdictional police has registered the FIR against the driver of the unknown vehicle, thereafter conducted the spot mahazar as per ex-P3. As per Ex-P3, IO went to the spot shown by the eye witness by name Ramanna and Krishna Singh. As per the eye witnesses they were the coconut vendors at the side of the highway road and they were sleeping near by their shop and on 2-9-2021 there was rainfall and at about 11.45 p.m. at NH 4 Tumkur- Jalahalli cross and two private bus came from Jalahalli cross towards 8th mail and both came in high speed in the service road and bus which was behind the first bus went forward some distance and near MRP Bar, driver of the 2 nd bus stop the bus and took the bus in a reverse gear and came near to their coconut shop where they slept and took the bus towards SCCH-6 8 MVC. No.4494/2021 extreme left side of the road and hit to the pedestrian who was proceeding by wearing jerkin and college bag, soon after, they shouted, the person fell down and back left tyre of the said bus ran over the head of the said person and immediately within seconds, the driver of the bus drove the bus in speed manner in the same service road and went towards 8th mile, though this shouted but driver of the bus did not stop the bus. As it was raining, they saw only NT written in english on the back of the said bus and as there was heavy rain and as the bus was speed they could not identified the number. Further the seized bus was identified by the witnesses.
10. Apart from this, as per Ex-P4 sketch, accident has been taken place on the extreme left edge of the road. Ex-P4 clearly shows that the accident has been taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Apart from this, after the registration fo the FIR, IO has conducted through and detailed investigation and filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable u/s 279, 304A of IPC r/w 134 (a) and (b) and 187 SCCH-6 9 MVC. No.4494/2021 of IMV Act by holding that on 2-2-2021 at about 11.30 p.m. the driver of the private bus bearing No.KA-13-C-0899 drove his vehicle in NH 4 Tumkur service road from Jalahalli cross and near Chokkasandra junction drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and drove the bus in reverse direction inn the same service road and hit to the pedestrian Devaraju who was proceeding at the side of the road, as a result of accident, Devaraju fell down and left back side tire ran over the head of the deceased Devaraju and succumbed at the spot and soon after the accident, the driver of the bus did not stop the bus at the spot and ran away along with the bus.
11. Though respondent counsel contended that the offending vehicle is not at all involved in the accident, but PW-3 IO who conducted the investigation has clearly stated that on the next day of the accident, PSI Avinash visited the spot and conducted the spot mahazar and at the time of spot mahazar, tored mud guard of the back tire of the bus was on the spot and was seized from the spot. Thereafter PW-3 has further conducted the investigation and has seized CC camara footage from MRP bar located near the spot of SCCH-6 10 MVC. No.4494/2021 accident from bar cashier Keerthi. Thereafter further verified the CC camara footage of the MRP bar with that CC TV footage at at tollgate and found that the vehicle bearing No.KA-13-C-0899 i.e., respondent vehicle was involved in the accident. Thereafter has issued the notice to the owner and driver of the respective vehicle. Ex-P5 is the IMV notice issued to the owner and reply notice as per Ex-P6 the supervisor of the said bus clearly stated that at the time of accident, Sachin @ S/o Gangadhar was driving the vehicle, no where in the Ex-P6 it is stated that the said vehicle has not been involved in the accident. If at all the said vehicle ha snot at all been involved in the accident, certainly the owner of the vehicle would have lodge the complaint or else taken the legal action against the petitioner and the police officer for the wrong implication of the vehicle.
12. Further PW-3 has clearly deposed that he has seized the vehicle and compared the seized tire mat with the bus and they tallying with each other and thereafter the seized tored tire mat and the vehicle to the FSL for examination. He received the FSL opinion as per which the seized tored SCCH-6 11 MVC. No.4494/2021 mudguard tyre mat was belonging to the said vehicle. Further PW-3 has obtained the GPS reading and the mobile user ID from the Supervisor of bus by name Nagarajappa and also obtained his statement and completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet. Even PW-3 has produced FSL report as per Ex-P39 and 65(B) certificate as per Ex-P40 and the location of the incident, GPS reading as per Ex-P41 and PF for the seizure of the tire mat and sketch, crime detail form and seizure mahazar and GPS reading summary, photos and CDs as per Ex-P44 to 47. As per Ex-P39 FSL report as per the opinion of the FSL (1) the rubber mudguard tire mat marked as article number 1 physically fit to the small rubber piece found on rear left metallic frame of bus marked as article number 2 to form part of one and the same rubber mudguard tire mat (2) the rubber mudguard tire mat marked as article number1 is similar to rear right side rubber mudguard tire mat of bus marked as article number 2.
13. Further PW-3 has produced Ex-P40 certificate issued by the Keerthi of the MRP bar situated at the spot of accident. For production of the CCTV footage Ex-P40 the GPS reading SCCH-6 12 MVC. No.4494/2021 of the bus and Ex-P41 and 42 are the photos, Ex-P43 is the PF for seizure of the tored rubber mat all these documents clearly establish that the vehicle has been involved in the accident. It is pertinent to note here that respondent has not at all examined the driver of the offending vehicle to disprove the evidence of the PW-1 or to prove their evidence which is fatal to the case of the respondent. Moreover apart from this, respondent has not at all challenged and disputed the charge sheet filed by the IO. Even no evidence and materials were placed on record by the respondent to prove that the charge sheet is collusive and defective. Though PW-3 was cross examined at length by the respondent, but nothing worth was elicited from the mouth of the PW-3 in favour of the respondents. The very manner of the accident, coupled with the police documents clearly established that the accident has been taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus/offending vehicle.
14. At this juncture, It is necessary to apply the citation reported in AIR 2011 SC 1504 between Parmeshwari -vs- Amir Chand & Ors - wherein it has been held that - SCCH-6 13 MVC. No.4494/2021
"In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
15. Thus, the oral evidence of PW-1 discussed with the above documentary evidence are sufficient for the purpose of the actionable claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. Mere taking of defence is not sufficient to dislodge the testimony of other side, which has no sanctity in the eyes of Law.
16. Under such circumstances the evidence of PW.1 which is supported by police documents has to be accepted. Consequently I hold that the accident is proved to have been caused due to the actionable negligence of the driver of offending vehicle.
17. In addenda, in a claim for compensation u/s 166 of M.V Act, 1988, the claimant has to prove the incident only on preponderance of probabilities and proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'MANGALA RAM VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE SCCH-6 14 MVC. No.4494/2021 COMPANY reported in (2018) 5 SCC 656. With this observation issue No.1 is answered as 'In the Affirmative'.
18. ISSUES NO.2 : The petitioner No.1 filed affidavit in lieu of her chief-examination and deposed that she is the wife, petitioners No.2 and 3 are their daughters, petitioner No.4 is the mother of the deceased Devaraju K.G. The documents which are exhibited at Ex's.P20 to 24 -Adhaar cards reveals that the petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioners No.2 and 3 are the daughters, petitioner No.4 is the mother of the deceased Devaraju. Hence issue No.2 is answered in the affirmative.
19. ISSUES NO.3: From Ex-P20-Copy of adhaar card of Devaraju K.G., it reveals that date of birth of Devaraju is 5-5- 1972 and as on the date of accident, Devaraju was aged 49 years, 3 months, 27 days. Admittedly the deceased was married and the appropriate multiplier as per Sarla Verma's case for the said age group of 46 to 50 is '13'.
20. The petitioners have stated that deceased Devaraju was working as driver at BMTC and earning Rs.40,000/-p.m. SCCH-6 15 MVC. No.4494/2021 the petitioners have produced Ex-P11 to 19-salary slips. Though respondent counsel contended that the petitioners have filed the application requesting for the job on compensatory grounds and already, petitioner has obtained Rs.17 lakhs from the department, but it is pertinent to note here that the deceased being appointed as driver from 14-10- 2014 and at the time of the accident, he was still working as a driver and obtaining the salary and he was paying GPF and PF. Even PW-2 Assistant in charge of BMTC has clearly stated that till this date, any family member of the deceased was not given the employment in the department on compensatory grounds and BMTC has given Rs.10 lakhs towards PF to the family of the deceased and Rs.17 lakhs towards personal insurance and Rs.7 lakhs towards the gratuity. Thus it is clear that the amount of Rs.17 lakhs has been paid to the petitioners towards the PF and personal insurance towards which deceased was paying the premium and this will not deprive of the petitioners to claim the compensation for the death of deceased due to injuries sustained in the accident caused by other private bus. SCCH-6 16 MVC. No.4494/2021 In order to prove the income of the deceased, petitioners have produced salary slip Ex-P11 to 19, accident has been taken place on 2-9-2021 and as on the date of accident as per ex- P17 August 2021, the gross pay was Rs.33,954/- and the deceased was paying PF of Rs.200/- and the same has to be deducted from the gross pay which will amount to Rs.33,754/-p.m. Thus the monthly income of the deceased is Rs.33,754/-.
21. As per Sarala Verma's case towards his future prospectus if 30% of the salary is added it would be around Rs.43,880/- (Rs.33,754/- + 10,126). The deceased was married and having five dependents. Hence 1/4 of his income needs to be deducted towards personal & living expenses. 1/4 of Rs.43,880/- works out to Rs.10,970/-. Income for consideration is Rs.32,910/- (43880 - 10970). Annual income works out to Rs.3,94,920/- (32,910 X 12). Appropriate multiplier is '13'. Thus loss of dependency works out to Rs.51,33,960/- (3,94,920 X 13).
SCCH-6 17 MVC. No.4494/2021
22. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM: In view of the ratio laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2021) 11 SCC 780 between United India Insurance Company Limited V/s. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others, each of the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- (in view of the Pranay Sethi case, 10% of Rs.40,000/- has to be enhanced for every 3 years from 2017) on account of loss of spousal consortium, parental consortium and loss of love & affection. Petitioner No.1 to 5 being wife, children, parents of the deceased are entitled to the consortium of Rs.48,400/- each.
23. LOSS OF ESTATE: Petitioners are entitled for Rs.18,150/- (in view of the Pranay Sethi case, 10% of Rs.15,000/- has to be enhanced for every 3 years from 2017) towards loss of estate.
24. FUNERAL EXPENSES: Petitioners are entitled for Rs.18,150/- ( in view of the Pranay Sethi case, 10% of Rs.15,000/- has to be enhanced for every 3 years from 2017) towards funeral expenses.
SCCH-6 18 MVC. No.4494/2021
25. The calculation table stands as follows :
1 Loss of Dependency : Rs.51,33,960/-
2 Loss of Consortium : Rs.1,93,600/-
3 Loss of Estate : Rs.18,150/-
4 Funeral Expenses : Rs.18,150/-
Total Rs.53,63,860/-
Hence, petitioners are entitle for compensation of Rs.53,63,860/-.
26. REGARDING INTEREST & LIABILITY: Having regard to the nature of the claim and current bank rate of interest, this Tribunal is of the view that if interest at the rate of 6% p.a, is awarded it would meet the ends of justice.
27. Therefore, the respondent No.1 being the RC owner and respondent No.2 is insurer is liable to pay the aforesaid award amount to the petitioners together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization of the entire amount. However the respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle is primarily liable to satisfy the award amount together with interest within one month from the date of this order. Accordingly issue No.2 is answered as 'In SCCH-6 19 MVC. No.4494/2021 the Affirmative' and issue No.3 is answered as 'Party in the affirmative'.
28. ISSUE NO.4 : In view of the findings given on issues No.1 to 3 and for the reasons discussed therein, I proceed to pass the following;
-: ORDER :-
The petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle's Act 1988, is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners No.1 to 4 are entitled for the compensation of Rs.53,63,860/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay and directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of award. On deposit together with interest, out of the compensation amount of Rs.53,63,860/- the petitioner No.1 to 4 are entitled for the said amount by way of apportionment as follows:
Petitioner No.1- 40- %
Petitioner No.2- 20 - %
Petitioner No.3- 20 - %
SCCH-6 20 MVC. No.4494/2021
Petitioner No.4- 20 - %
Out of the share amount of Petitioner No.1 and 4 a sum equal to 40% shall be deposited in their respective names in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank of their choice for a period of 3 years and the remaining 60% shall be released to them through E-payment on proper identification and verification.
Since the petitioner No.2 and 3 are minors, entire compensation awarded to their share shall be kept in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank of their parents choice till they attains the age of majority.
However the said petitioner No.1 to 4 are at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on their deposit amount from time to time.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 16th day of June 2025).
(Chetana S.F.) IV ASCJ & ACJM Court of Small causes, Bengaluru SCCH-6 21 MVC. No.4494/2021 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/S :
PW-1 : Asha B.S. PW-2 : G.Raju PW-3 : Sridhar K.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/S :
Ex.P.1 : True copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : Complaint copy
Ex.P.3 : Spot mahazar
Ex.P.4 : Rough sketch
Ex.P.5 : 133 notice
Ex.P.6 : Reply notice
Ex.P.7 : Inquest report
Ex.P.8 : PM report
Ex.P.9 : IMV report
Ex.P.10 : Charge sheet
Ex.P.11 to 19 : Salary slips
Ex.P.20 to 24 : Aadhaar card
Ex.P.25 : Service book
Ex.P.26 : Appointment letter
Ex.P.27 : Order copy of permanent job
Ex.P.28 to 36 : Salary slips
Ex.P.37 : Attendance book
Ex.P.38 : Order copy of divisional controller
Ex.P.39 : FSL report and seal
Ex.P.40 : 65B certificate
SCCH-6 22 MVC. No.4494/2021
Ex.P.41 : Location of the incident place reading copy Ex.P.42 : Vehicle photo Ex.P.43 : PF copy Ex.P.44 : Panchanama Ex.P.45 : Crime detail form and sketch Ex.P.46 : GSS reading Ex.P.47 : Photo, CD LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/S :
RW-1 : Likith K.C. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/S : Authorisation letter (Chetana S.F.) IV Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACJM, Court of Small causes, Bengaluru.SCCH-6 23 MVC. No.4494/2021