Bangalore District Court
Shabeen Taj vs Ramkrishna M on 10 November, 2025
SCCH-26 M.V.C.5339/2022
KABC020291742022
BEFORE THE COURT OF XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AND ACJM (SCCH-26) AT :BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025
PRESENT : SRI. APPASAB NAIK,
B.A.L.L.B.(Spl)
XXIV ADDL. SCJ & ACJM
& MEMBER - MACT
BENGALURU.
M.V.C.No.5339 OF 2022
PETITIONERS 1. Smt. Shabeen Taj,
Aged about 47 years,
W/o Late Javeed Pasha
@ S. Javeed Pasha.
2. Smt. Umme Soudia,
Aged about 23 years,
W/o Shaikh Ataulla @
D.P. Athaulla,
D/o Late Javeed Pasha
@ S. Javeed Pasha.
3. Kum. Umme Arbiya,
Aged about 20 years,
D/o Late Javeed pasha
@ S. Javeed Pasha.
SCCH-26 2 MVC.5339/2022
4. Master Mohammed Moin Uddin,
Aged about 19 years,
S/o Late Javeed Pasha
@ S. Javeed Pasha.
5. Master Syed Abdul Rahman,
Aged about 15 years,
S/o Late Javeed Pasha
@ S. Javeed Pasha.
6. Kum. Hafiza @ Hafeeza Kousar,
Aged about 14 years,
D/o Late Javeed Pasha
@ S. Javeed Pasha.
Petitioners No.5 & 6 are since
minors represented by their
mother and natural guardian
petitioner No.1 Smt. Shabeen Taj
Petitioner No.2 is residing at
No.61,Doddanallurahalli, Kasaba
Hobli, Hosakote Taluk.
Petitioners No.1,3,4,5 & 6 are
residing near Madeena Masjid,
Salamath Nagat, Old Madras
Road, Hoskote Town,, Bangalore
Rural District.
(By Sri. Reeyazulla Shareef, Advocate)
- Vs -
RESPONDENTS 1. Sri. Ramakrishna M.,
(Major in age)
S/o Dharma Nayak M.,
Residing at No.37, 7th Cross,
SCCH-26 3 MVC.5339/2022
N.r. Sunanda Gudu Road,
Ramakrishna Nagar,
JP Nagar, 6th Phase,
Bangalore-78.
(Ex-parte)
2. The Legal Manager,
M/s Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company Ltd.,
Golden Heights, 4th Floor,
No.1/2, 59th C Cross Road,
4th M Block, 59A Cross Road,
Bangalore-560010.
(By Sir. Gururaj Salur, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed under the provisions of Sec.166 of M.V Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of Sri. Javeed Pasha @ S. Javeed Pasha caused in a Road Traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the petitioners case are as under:
On 21.08.2022 at about 8.00 p.m., while Javeed Pasha @ S. Javed Pasha was standing on footpath about to cross Hosakote-Chinthamani Road near Taj Hotel, Chikkahulluru SCCH-26 4 MVC.5339/2022 Gate, at that time one Honda Car bearing Reg,No.KA-53-M- 8216 driven by its driver with high speed from Chinthamani towards Hosakote, in a rash and negligent manner, causing endanger to human life and dashed against S.Javeed Pasha. Due to said accident Javeed Pasha had sustained severe injuries all over the body. Immediately he was shifted to Kempanna Hospital for treatment and after first aid, as per advice of doctors, Javeed Pasha was shifted to Vydehi Medical College Hospital, wherein the doctors declared as dead and postmortem was conducted in the said hospital.
3. The 1st petitioner is the wife and petitioner No. 2 to 6 are the children's of deceased Javeed Pasha. The deceased Javeed Pasha was aged 52 years, he was working as a Mechanic and he is the proprietor of M/s Indian Auto Diesel Works, Chikkahullurur, Hosakote Taluk and he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. The deceased has contributed his entire earnings to the maintenance of petitioners. Petitioners Nos.3 to 6 are college and school going children, the deceased was looking after the family and providing SCCH-26 5 MVC.5339/2022 education to his children. Due to sudden death of only bread earner of the family, the petitioners are put to great mental shock and irreparable loss and they are facing untold financial difficulties to lead their future life. The petitioners have spent Rs.50,000/- towards medical, hospital and travelling expenses, Rs.50,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses.
4. The accident was occurred due to the sole rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA- 53-M-8216. The Hosakote police have registered the case in Cr.No.294/2022 under Sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC. The respondent No.1 being the R.C. Owner and the respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence, they have prayed to award compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- from the respondents.
5. The notice of the petition has been duly served to respondents Nos.1 and 2. The Respondent No.2 has appeared before the Tribunal and filed written statement. SCCH-26 6 MVC.5339/2022 Respondent No.1 has remained absent and he has been placed Ex-parte.
6. The Respondent No.1 has filed its written statement by denying the entire petition averments and contended that, the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. This respondent has admitted the issuance of insurance policy with respect to Car bearing Reg.No.KA-53- M-8216 and contended that, the liability of this respondent if any is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Further denied the involvement of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-53-M-8216 in the accident and stated that, the deceased had sustained injuries somewhere else. The petitioners in collusion with the police authorities have field the false complaint against the said vehicle. Further contended that, the driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle at the time of accident. The insured has violated the provisions of motor vehicles act by permitting the unlicensed driver to drive the said vehicle. Further, there is SCCH-26 7 MVC.5339/2022 no compliance of Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of M.V. Act. It has denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. This respondent has contended that, the petitioners are major children of the deceased, hence they are not dependents on the income of deceased. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and exorbitant. Hence, it has prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues has been framed :
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners' prove that, on 21.08.2022 at about 8.00 pm., when the deceased was standing on footpath to cross Hosakote-Chinthamani road, near Taj Hotel, Chikkahulluru gate, Hosakote Taluk, at that time, the driver of Honda Car bearing reg.No.KA-53-M-8216 drove the same with very high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the deceased and as a result deceased sustained fatal injuries and died, as mentioned in claim petition?SCCH-26 8 MVC.5339/2022
2.Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed in the petition? If so, from which respondent?
3. What Order or Award?
8. In order to prove their case, the 1st petitioner herself examined as PW.1 and got marked 17 documents as per Ex.P.1 to 17. The petitioners have also examined one witness as P.W.2. The respondent No.2 has examined two witnesses as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and got marked 4 documents as per Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4.
9. Heard the arguments from both sides. Leaned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted written argument along with two decisions reported in ILR 2021 KAR 146, between The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Belagavi Vs. Smt. Reshama and Others and ILR 2009 KAR 2921, between Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs. B.C. Kumar and Another. Perused the entire materials placed on record.
SCCH-26 9 MVC.5339/2022
10. My answers to the above issues are as follows :-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative Issue No.2 : In the Partly Affirmative Issue No.3 : As per final order for the following :
REASONS
11. ISSUE No.1:- PW.1 has produced Aadhaar cards of deceased at Ex.P.11, petitioner No.1 at Ex.P.12, petitioner No.2 at Ex.P.13, petitioner No.3 at Ex.P.14, petitioner No.4 at Ex.P.15, Petitioner No.5 at Ex.P.16 and petitioner No.6 at Ex.P.17. From these documents it is clear that petitioner No.1 is wife and petitioner No.2to 6 are the children's of deceased. From these documents, it is clear that Petitioners No.1 to 6 are the legal heirs. Therefore, petitioners No.1 to 6 are considered as dependents on the income of deceased. Therefore, they are considered as legal heirs of deceased and they are entitled for compensation due to death of deceased.
12. It is the case of petitioners that, on 21.08.2022 at about 8.00 p.m., while Javeed Pasha @ S. Javed Pasha was standing on footpath about to cross Hosakote-Chinthamani SCCH-26 10 MVC.5339/2022 Road near Taj Hotel, Chikkahulluru Gate, at that time one Honda Car bearing Reg,No.KA-53-M-8216 driven by its driver with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against S. Javeed Pasha. Due to said accident Javeed Pasha had sustained severe injuries all over the body, after first aid at Kempanna Hospital he was shifted to Vydehi Medical College Hospital, wherein the doctors declared as dead. In order to prove their case, petitioner No.1 has examined herself as PW.1. She has filed affidavit in lieu of her chief examination and re-iterated the entire petition averments. She has got marked 17 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.17.
13. On the other hand, the contention of Respondent No.2 is that, the car bearing Reg.No.KA-53-M-8216 was not at all involved in the accident and not caused any accident. The petitioners have made false case against the driver of said Car by colluding with the police in order to get compensation from this respondent. The accident was occurred on 21.08.2022, but the complainant was lodged on SCCH-26 11 MVC.5339/2022 22.08.2022. As per medical records, an unknown car caused the alleged accident. The police have filed false charge sheet without proper investigation by suppressing the true facts in order to help the petitioners. Hence the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation.
14. Now, the burden is on the petitioners to prove the actionable negligence on the part of driver of the offending Car bearing Reg.No.KA-53-M-8216. From the evidence on record it can be seen that after receipt of complaint as per Ex.P.2, Hosakote P.S. have registered the case as per Ex.P.1 FIR in Crime No.294/2022 against the Honda Car bearing No.KA-53-M-8216 for the offenses punishable U/s.279 and 304(A) of IPC. The police have conducted mahazar and submitted the spot mahazar and spot sketch as per Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4. After due investigation the police have filed charge-sheet against the driver of the above said car as per Ex.P-10. Ex.P.6 is the inquest panchanama. Ex.P.9 is the postmortem report of the deceased and as per this document, the cause of death is due to shock and SCCH-26 12 MVC.5339/2022 hemorrhage consequent upon injuries sustained. Ex.P.5 is the IMV report which shows that, the front bumper on the left side portion of the car bearing Reg.KA-53-M-8216 was damaged and front windscreen glass broken. It also shows that, the cause of accident was not due to any mechanical defects of above said car. Though the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross examined of PW.1 in detail, but he has failed to elicit anything to disbelieve her version.
15. Further, petitioners have examined eye witness of accident by name Syed Toufiq as PW2. He has reiterated the averments as stated in the petition. Though the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross examined of PW.2 in detail, but he has failed to elicit anything to disbelieve his version.
16. In order to prove their defence, the 2nd respondent has examined two witnesses as R.W.1 and R.W.2. R.W.1 namely Ajith is the Maintenance Supervisor, Kempanna Hospital, Hosakote and he has produced two documents as SCCH-26 13 MVC.5339/2022 per Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2. R.W.1 is the authorization letter of R.W.1 and Ex.R.2 is the true copy of MLC extract.
17. R.W.2 namely Ruchitha Renukesh, Senior Execute of 2nd respondent company has field affidavit by way of examination in chief, wherein he has reiterated the written statement averments. She has produced 2 documents, which are marked as Ex.R.3 and Ex.R.4. Ex.R.3 is the authorization letter and Ex.R.4 is the insurance policy.
18. On perusal of Ex.R.2, it shows that, alleged history of accident was hit by unknown car and the petitioner is unconscious. Except the said document, respondent No.2 has not produced any other documents to substantiate its contention. The counsel for the petitioners has cross- examined R.W.2. During the course of cross-examination, he has clearly admitted that, unconscious person cannot give any statement. Further R.W.2 has admitted that, they have not lodged any complaint against the investigating officer of the alleged accident. With these backdrops, it cannot be considered that, the alleged accident was not due SCCH-26 14 MVC.5339/2022 to rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA- 53-M-8216 by its driver.
19. Even in the cross- examination of RW1 & RW2, respondent has not placed any supportive and reliable documents for consideration to believe its defenses against the case of the petitioners. The respondent No.2 has not made an effort to examine either the driver of the offending vehicle or any independent eye witness to prove its defence. Added to this, the respondent No.2 has not challenged the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. Apart from this, PW1 & PW2 were subjected for cross- examination, but nothing has been elicited from their mouth to believe the defenses of the respondent No.2 about the denial of allegation made against the driver of the offending vehicle.
20. At the time of argument the counsel for the respondent No.2 has argued that, MLC was entered as unknown car on the date of accident and the police have SCCH-26 15 MVC.5339/2022 filed false charge sheet without proper investigation. In support of his contention relied the following decisions reported in;
1) ILR 2014 KAR 3336 between Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt.Kempamma & Others
2) ILR 2009 KAR 2921 between Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. B.C. Kumar and Another
21. I have gone through the supra decisions, the common principle laid down in the supra decisions is that 'mere pleading guilty before the criminal court itself will not be sufficient to accept the case of a claimant before the MACT and the evidence before the claims tribunal tells a different story and gives rise to a doubt the very case of the claimant."
22. At this stage it is also relevant to rely the decision reported in 2024 ACJ 173 between Divisional Controller, SCCH-26 16 MVC.5339/2022 MSRTC Vs. Bismilah & Others. The principle laid down in the supra decision is that "discharge summary cannot be the basis to conclude the manner of accident. The Tribunal can relied the sketch and charge sheet proves the manner of accident."
23. In the instant case, sketch and charge sheet clearly reveals that car bearing registration No.KA-53-M-8216 is involved in the accident. Apart from this, Ex. R.2-MLC clearly shows the history of accident as "RTA on 21-08-2022 at round 8.00pm near chikkaluru gate Chinthamani road while walking hit by unknown car". Hence, I am of the opinion that the respondent No.2 has failed to establish his contention that the accident occurred due to unknown car and the offending car is not involved the accident and not on the part of the driver of the car bearing No.KA-53-M- 8216. Hence, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 holds no water. SCCH-26 17 MVC.5339/2022
24. Therefore, there is nothing on record to show that the charge-sheet filed by the police is collusive or defective and the evidence of PW-1 and Pw-2 corroborates with the documents produced by them. There is nothing elicited to disprove the negligence on the part of the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-53-M-8216. Moreover, it is settled law that the term "rashness and negligence" has to be construed lightly while deciding a petition for claim of compensation under the MV Act as compared to the word "rashness and negligence" as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in M.V.Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one. Therefore, based on the above discussion, I hold that the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the Honda Car bearing Reg.No. KA-53-M-8216 is proved. As such, I answer issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
25. ISSUE No.2: As already discussed in Issue No.1, Petitioner No.1 to 6 are the dependents of the deceased SCCH-26 18 MVC.5339/2022 Javeed Pasha @ S. Javeed Pasha and they are entitled for compensation.
26. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:- PW.1 has produced the notarized copy of Aadhaar card of deceased at Ex.P.11. As per this document, the date of birth of deceased is mentioned as 12.07.1970. The accident was occurred on 21.08.2022. Therefore, as on the date of accident the deceased was 52 years. As per the principles laid down by their Lordships in 2009 ACJ 1298 (Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corporation), the multiplier applicable to the present case is '11'.
27. According to PW.1, her deceased husband was working as a Mechanic and he was a proprietor of M/s Indian Auto Diesel Works, Chikkahullurur, Hosakote Taluk and he was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. In order to prove her contention, P.W.1 has not produced any documentary evidence. At this juncture, I would like to refer the decision of Yashoda.H and others V/s. Sharath Kumar Achar and another. In this case, the Hon'ble High SCCH-26 19 MVC.5339/2022 Court has taken into consideration the notional income as fixed by the Karnataka Legal Service Authority, Bengaluru. Therefore in view of the above decision the notional income of the deceased is taken as Rs.15,500/- as the accident took place in the year 2022.
28. As the deceased was 52 years as on the date of accident and same is considered as age of the deceased and proper multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 11. As the age of the deceased is below 60 years, 10% future prospects have to be added as per Pranay Sethi case. Then the monthly income would be ₹.15,500+1,550=₹.17,050/-. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, deceased was married and six persons are dependents, hence 1/4 of the income to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses and then the annual income would comes around (17,050/- (-) 4,262/-) ₹.12,788/- x 12 = ₹.1,53,456/- and by applying 11 SCCH-26 20 MVC.5339/2022 multiplier, the loss of dependency would be ₹.16,88,016/-.
29. CONSORTIUM: Further, as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years under the following conventional heads. As such, Petitioner No.1 is entitled to Rs.48,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,000/- towards Funeral expenses.
30. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others (Civil Appeal No.9581/2018D.D.18.09/2018) the petitioners No.2 to 6 are being the children of the deceased has awarded Rs.48,000/- each under the head of Loss of parental consortium.
31. In all the Tribunal has awarded total compensation to the petitioners under the following heads: SCCH-26 21 MVC.5339/2022
Sl. Nature of Compensation Amount
No
1. Loss of dependency ₹. 16,88,016/-
2. Loss of spousal ₹. 48,000/-
consortium to petitioner
No.1
4. Loss of parental ₹. 2,40,000/-
consortium to petitioner
No.2 to 6 (48,000 x 5)
5. Loss to estate ₹. 18,000/-
6. Transportation of dead ₹. 18,000/-
body and Funeral
Expenses
Total ₹. 20,12,016/-
Therefore as per above heads, the petitioners are entitled the compensation of Rs. 20,12,016/-.
32. 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% per annum is awarded it would meet the ends of justice.
33. In this case, the Respondent No.2 being the insurer and Respondent No.1 being the owner of the SCCH-26 22 MVC.5339/2022 offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the above compensation with interest at 6% p.a. to the Petitioners as issuance of policy and subsistence of policy is not disputed. Hence, respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly issue No.2 is answered as 'Partly in the Affirmative.
34. ISSUE NO.3 :- In view of the discussion made supra, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following :
:: ORDER ::
The petition filed U/sec.166 of M.V Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for
compensation of Rs.20,12,016/-
(Rupees Twenty Lakhs twelve
thousand sixteen only) with
interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till the date of deposit.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are
jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the petitioners.
However, the respondent No.2
SCCH-26 23 MVC.5339/2022
insurance company is hereby
directed to deposit the compensation amount in this tribunal within one month from the date of this order.
On deposit of the award amount together with interest, the petitioners are entitled for the compensation amount by way of apportionment as follows : Petitioner No.1 - 50% Petitioner No. 2 to 6 - 10 % each Out of the total compensation amount, 25% of the apportionment amount shall be kept in FD in the name of petitioner No.1 in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank for a period of 3 years and balance 75% shall be disbursed to her through E-
payment on proper identification. However the said Petitioner No.1 is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on her deposit amount from time to time.SCCH-26 24 MVC.5339/2022
Out of the share amount of Petitioner No.2 to 4, entire amount shall be released to them through E- payment on proper identification. Since the petitioner No.5 and 6 are minors, the entire share amount of Petitioner No.5 and 6 shall be deposited in their respective names as fixed deposit in any nationalized/scheduled bank till them attaining the age of majority. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw an award accordingly. (Dictated to the stenographer, directly over computer, typed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this day 10th day of November, 2025) (APPASAB NAIK) XXIV ADDL. SCJ & ACJM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE I. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
P.W.1 : Smt. Shabeen Taj
P.W.2 : Sri. Syed Thoufiq
SCCH-26 25 MVC.5339/2022
II. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONERS:
Ex.P.1 : True copy of FIR.
Ex.P.2 : True copy of complaint.
Ex.P.3 : True copy of spot panchanama. Ex.P.4 : True copy of hand sketch map. Ex.P.5 : True copy of MVA report. Ex.P.6 : True copy of Inquest Panchanama. Ex.P.7 : True copy of statements of CW9 and 10 &8 Ex.P.9 : True copy of Postmortem report. Ex.P.10 : True copy of final report. Ex.P.11 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card of deceased Ex.P.12 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner No.1.
Ex.P.13 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner No.2.
Ex.P.14 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner No.3.
Ex.P.15 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner No.4.
Ex.P.16 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner No.5.
Ex.P.17 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner No.6.
III. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
R.W.1 : Sri. Ajith.
SCCH-26 26 MVC.5339/2022
R.W.2 : Ruchitha Renukesh.
IV. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R.1 : Authorization letter pertaining to R.W.1 Ex.R.2 : True copy of MLC extract. Ex.R.3 : Authorization letter pertaining to R.W.2 Ex.R.4 : Insurance policy.
APPASAB Digitally by APPASAB signed RAMAPPA RAMAPPA NAIK Date: 2025.11.13 NAIK 17:22:44 +0530 (APPASAB NAIK) XXIV ADDL. SCJ & ACJM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU.