Bangalore District Court
Ramachandra vs S H Enterprises on 10 September, 2025
KABC020340752023
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 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025
MVC No.7120/2023
PETITIONER: 1. Sri. Ramchandra
S/o Ishvaraiah,
Aged about 60 years,
2. Smt. Meera Devi
W/o Ram Chandra,
Aged about 58 yaers,
Both are R/at:
Gayghat,
Gayghat Deoria Basil Kalwari,
Uttarapradesh - 272 301.
(By Sri.R.Chandrashekar,
Advocate/s.)
V/S
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.7120/2023
RESPONDENTS: 1. S.H.Enterprises
Registrar Prop H Sumathi,
No.265/5, 2nd Floor
Bapugrama School Road,
Binayaka Badavane,
Machohalli,
Bangalore - 560 091.
RC owner of Crane bearing
No.KA-51-MU-3558
(By Sri. H.T.Venkataraju,
Advocate.)
2. The Regional Manager
The Cholamandalam MS Gen.
Ins. Co. Ltd.,
6th Floor, near Sujatha Theater
Golden Heights Building
Rajajinagar, Bangalore-10.
Policy No.3380/0236585/000/00
dated from 17.04.2022 to
16.04.2024
(By Sri. K.Suresh, Advocate.)
******
JUDGMENT
This judgment arise out of claim petition filed by the claimants against respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "Act") praying for awarding compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of Anurag was died in a Road Traffic SCCH-25 3 MVC No.7120/2023 Accident that occurred on 14.08.2023 at about 7.20pm.
2. The case of the claimants in nutshell is that:
On 14.08.2023 at about 7.20pm the deceased Anurag was returning from work site to Camp on Crane bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MU-3558, which was driven by his college Rakesh Kumar with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without observing traffic norms and regulations, endangering human life, while proceeding so, on NH-207 Road, near Maddenahalli Gate, Thaymagondlu Hobli, took right turn towards service road very rash and negligent manner. Due to impact the deceased Anurag fell down who was sitting on the tool box next to driver's seat and the rare wheel of the vehicle ran over the body of the Anurag. Consequently, he succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Nelamangala, later PM was conducted and handed over the body to the petitioners. Petitioners performed funeral and obsequious ceremonies by spending Rs.1,00,000/-.
3. It is the further case of the petitioners that the deceased Anurag was aged about 27 years, hale and healthy, working as a Coolie and earning Rs.25,000/- per month and entire amount contributed to the maintenance of his family. Due to the sudden and unnatural death, the petitioners have lost their loving son and also lost their SCCH-25 4 MVC No.7120/2023 earning source. Their life has become dark and miserable. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners are put into great mental shock and agony. The accident was occurred due o the negligent act of the driver of the offending Crane bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MU-3558 and the jurisdictional Police have registered a case in Cr.No.84/2023 p/u/Secs.279, 304(A) of the IPC against the driver of the said offending vehicle driver. The 1 st respondent being the RC owner and the 2 nd respondent being the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
4. In response to the notice, the respondent appeared through their respective counsels and filed separate written statements.
5. The respondent No.1 has filed objections denying all the petition averments except admitting the ownership of the Crane bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MU-3558 and insured with the respondent No.2 company vide insurance policy NO.3380/02365858/00000 valid from 17.04.2023 to 16.07.2024. The driver of the offending vehicle had a valid DL as on the date of accident. Further stated that never any passenger was taken by the Crane Driver at any point of time in the alleged above said crane. It has also denied that the deceased was working under this firm at any point of SCCH-25 5 MVC No.7120/2023 time. It has also denied that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the Crane bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MU-3558. Further denied the age, occupation, income of the deceased. Further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive, exorbitant. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition against it.
5A. The respondent No.2 has filed objections denying all the petition averments except admitting the issuance of police in favour of the 1st respondent in respect of the Crane bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MU-3558. There is a non compliance of Sec.134(c) & 158(6) of MV Act. Further stated that the driver of the offending Crane vehicle did not possess a valid driving License as on the date of accident. Further stated that Coolie is not covered under the policy. The 1 st respondent was not paid any premium to cleaner. It has also denied the involvement of the Crane in the accident and also denied the manner of accident. Further the insured vehicle had no permit and FC as on the date of accident. There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the Crane. The accident caused due to the negligence of the deceased himself. Further denied the age, occupation, income of the deceased. Further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners are exorbitant and highly excessive. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition against it.
SCCH-25 6 MVC No.7120/20236. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are arises for determination.
Issue No.1: Whether the petitioners prove that, they are the legal representatives and dependants of the deceased Sri.Anurag?
Issue No.2: Whether the petitioners prove that, the deceased Sri.Anurag, had died due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident that occured on 14.08.2023 at about 07.20pm, on NH 207 Road, near Maddenhalli gate, Thyamagondalu hobli, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of crane bearing .No.KA-51-MU-3558 as alleged?
Issue No.3: Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as claimed? If so, what amount and from whom?
Issue No.4: What order or Award?
7. In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioner No.1 has examined himself as PW- 1 and got marked total Thirteen documents as Exs.P1 to P.13 and closed their side evidence. Inorder to prove its defence the respondent No.2 got examined its Deputy Manager - legal as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 & 2 and closed their side. The respondent No.1 got examined its authorized person as RW.2 and got marked Exs.R.3 to 8.
SCCH-25 7 MVC No.7120/20238. I have heard the arguments canvassed by the counsels for the petitioner and the respondents.
The counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:
1. MFA No.202104/2024 : The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard Nibhaye Vadde Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., and Ors.
2. ILR 2016 KAR 55 : Ms. ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd., Vs. Smt. Bharathi S Reddy and Ors.
3. 2012 ACJ 1370 : New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pazhaniammal and Ors.
4. MFA No.200582/2021 C/w MFA No.200027/2020, 200028/2020, 200989/2021 : Sunita and Anr. Vs. M/s Allcargo Logistics Ltd., and Anr.
The counsel for the Respondent No.1 has relied upon the following Gazetted Notification dated 16.04.2018 The counsel for the Respondent No.2 has relied upon the following decision
1. ILR 2011 KAR 4619 : Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Shoba and Ors.
9. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence let in before this tribunal, my answers to the above Issues are as follows:
SCCH-25 8 MVC No.7120/2023Issue No.1 : In the affirmative Issue No.2 : In the affirmative. Issue No.3 : Partly in affirmative Issue No.4 : As per final order, for the foregoing;
REASONS
10. Issue Nos.1 and 2: As these issues are inter- linked each other, as such I considered these issues taken together for common discussion and also to avoid repetition of facts of the case. As I referred above, In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioner No.1 has examined himself as PW-1 and got marked total Thirteen documents as Ex.P1 to 13 and closed their side evidence. The respondent No.2 has got examined its official as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 & R.2. The Respondent No.1 has got examined its authorized person as RW.2 and got marked Exs.R.3 to R.8. The details of the exhibits are given in the annexure of the judgment.
11. The PW.1 has reiterated the petition averments in the chief examination. The PW.1 has been subjected to cross examination. In the cross examination of PW.1, nothing worthwhile is elicited.
12. To prove the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased, they have produced notarized copy of Aadhar Cards of the petitioners and the deceased, PAN Card of the petitioner No.1 and Ration Card at Exs.P.11 to 13. Ex.P.5 SCCH-25 9 MVC No.7120/2023 Inquest mahazar also shows the names and relationship of the petitioners with the deceased.
13. The petitioners have totally relied on the police documents to establish the negligence on the part of the deceased and offending vehicle's driver. It is no doubt the police have submitted the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle after thorough investigation. The sketch appended to spot mahazar indicates that the driver of the Hydra Crane proceeding near Muddenahalli Gate, Two way service Road, on the Dabaspet - Doddaballapura NH 207, suddenly turned towards left side of service road and the deceased who was sitting beside on the place where the tools are kept and he suddenly fell down and the diesel tank front portion of of the mudguard touched the deceased Anurag and the left side of the wheel of crane ran over the deceased and he succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The Sketch further depicts that it was two ways road and the offending vehicle was coming on its way from the construction road. It is undisputed fact that the road was under construction process and the Crane proceeded towards service Road. The sketch clearly depicts that there was curve towards service road. The oral evidence of the petitioners have coupled with documentary evidence. The insurance company has denied the accident and also denied the involvement of the vehicle and manner of accident.
SCCH-25 10 MVC No.7120/202314. 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 RW.1 has reiterated the same along with other facts in his chief examination affidavit. The RW.1 has been subjected to cross examination. During the cross examination of RW.1, he has admitted that the policy was comprehensive policy it applicable to the third party also.
15. The respondent No.1 has also got examined its authorized person as RW.2 has reiterated the written statement averments in his chief examination. The RW.2 has been subjected to cross examination. In the cross examination of RW.2 has categorically deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle does not possessed the specific license to drove the crane. They have paid premium only to driver. He deposed that no space is available to sit on tool box in crane cabin. He admitted the incident. He deposed that the deceased was not an employee with them. He denied the suggestions about reference of the deceased presence in the vehicle at the time of accident. He further denied other suggestions of the counsel.
16. In deed the charge sheet is against the accused or driver of the offending vehicle which is belongs to SCCH-25 11 MVC No.7120/2023 respondent No.1 and further the police have charge sheeted against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offense punishable under section 279 and 304(A) of IPC. The police have not referred non-possessing of valid driving license at the time of accident in their entire case records. It is undisputed fact that the laden weight of the offending vehicle is 016020 KG which is more than 7500KG. Definition of the Light Motor Vehicle in Section 2 (21) that:
"a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7500] kilograms;" The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in a decision reported in 1(2025) 3 SCC 95:
"181.1. A driver holding a licence for light motor vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7500 kg, is permitted to operate a "transport vehicle" without needing additional authorisation under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the "transport vehicle" class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and transport vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The 1 Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, SCCH-25 12 MVC No.7120/2023 special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e- rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods.
181.2. The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasises the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a "transport vehicle", does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act."
17. The Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied the judgment of Our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of 2Sunita and others Vs M/s Allcargo Logistics Limited and another. In this case, the Hon'ble High Court has held that "a person having license of non-transport/transport vehicle to drive a light motor vehicle, can drive the crane (unladen weight of the crane was below 7,500Kgs)" But the case on hand the unladen weight of the crane was more than 7,500 KG. It is undisputed fact that the driver of the offending vehicle having transport vehicle. Whether the offending vehicle is fallen under the category of transport vehicle or not has to be determined. The certificate of 2 MFA No.200582 of 2021 C/w MFA No.200027, 200028/2020 and 200989 of 2021 (MV-D) dated 23.08.2025 SCCH-25 13 MVC No.7120/2023 registration marked at Ex.R7 depicts that the class of vehicle "CLASS: Vehicle. Model: F15 with outrigger." Which means the vehicle involved in this case can be classified as transport vehicle. Hence, I decline to accept the defense set out by the insurer. Hence, it is not safe to hold that the offending vehicle's driver does not possess the valid driving license at the time of the alleged accident. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held in the case 3The Divisional Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Yunus @ Yunusahamad and another that;
"14. Firstly, those who have witnessed the accident might not be interested in setting of the criminal law in motion.
15. Secondly, even if the some persons were persons were come to rescue the injured they may refrain to intimate the police based on their past experience with the investigation agency or general impression they carry about the police.
16. Under such circumstances, expecting an eye witnesses to be present in each and every case, is far from reality."
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 3 MFA No.104098-2017 dated 05-02-2024.
SCCH-25 14 MVC No.7120/2023should 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. The materials on records are clearly indicates that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent No.1's vehicle So, I hold issue Nos.1 & 2 in the affirmative.
19. Issue No.3: The Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 being the Father and Mother of the deceased. It is contention of the petitioners that the deceased was doing Coolie Work and earning of Rs.25,000/- Per month. The petitioner No.1 has reiterated the same in the chief examination affidavit. But the petitioners have not placed any material worth in this regard. As per the claim petition the age of the deceased was 27 years. The Aadhar Card of the deceased at Ex.P.11 discloses that the deceased age was 27 years. As I mentioned above, the petitioners have not placed any material worth to show the exact income of the deceased. So, considering the nature of work, the chart prepared, furnished by the Hon'ble Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, Bengaluru is taken in to consideration, the notional income of Rs.16,000/-pm is calculated to award loss of earning, it would meets the ends of justice. In the SCCH-25 15 MVC No.7120/2023 decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2017) 16 SCC 680 in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi and others, if an injured person is below 40 years, then 40% of future prospects should be added to his monthly income. So, the monthly income of deceased is Rs.16,000/- and the deceased comes below the age of 40 years slab then 40% of future prospects of his income would come to Rs.6,400/- then after adding the future prospects to his total income it comes to Rs.22,400/-. As per Sarala Varma's case the multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 17. The petitioners are the father and mother both are depending on the income of the deceased. Therefore, Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are the dependents of the deceased. If the deceased is a bachelor then ½ of his income has to deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Then the total income of the deceased would come Rs.11,200/- (Rs.22,400/- - Rs.11,200/- = Rs.11,200/-). The loss of dependency is calculated as below. Rs.11,200/- (monthly income) x 12 x 17 (multiplier) =Rs.22,84,800/-. 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.18,000/- in lump sum under the SCCH-25 16 MVC No.7120/2023 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.18,000/- 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 4 judgment reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 has held in aragraph No.21 that "A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) dealt with the various heads under which the 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 4 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram SCCH-25 17 MVC No.7120/2023 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. Modern 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".
SCCH-25 18 MVC No.7120/202323. The Petitioners are being parents of the deceased are entitled for '"Filial Consortium'. Hence a sum of Rs.88,000/- is awarded under this head.
24 Therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation under the following heads.
Sl. Name of the Head Awarded
No. Compensation
01. Loss of dependency Rs.22,84,800=00
02. Towards loss of estate Rs.18,000=00
03. Towards Funeral expenses Rs.18,000=00
04. Loss of Consortium Rs.88,000=00
TOTAL Rs.24,08,800-00
25. The next question is the liability to pay the said compensation. As I referred above the accident was occurred due rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver. It is the case of the insurer that the owner of the vehicle has paid premium to only one person i.e., driver of the vehicle. The insurer has produced the copy of the insurance policy and same has marked at Ex.R2. On careful perusal of that document, it is very pertinent to note herein that the policy itself depicts that the licensed passenger carrying capacity:1, Driver:1. Cleaner:0, SCCH-25 19 MVC No.7120/2023 Conductor:0, Total Seating capacity including driver:1. It is means, the insurer have collected premium by for licensed passenger, driver. Thought, seating capacity is only one including driver but the insurer itself issued insurance by allowing licensed passenger. The owner of the vehicle has taken a specific contention that the deceased is not an employer with them. Further the PW.1 has deposed that the deceased was working under SNC Construction. However, the police document are clearly depicts that the deceased was in the offending vehicle. It means the owner of the offending vehicle has allowed the deceased as licensed passenger. Therefore, the repondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The respondent No.2 has to indemnify the respondent No.1 and liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
26. APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION:
The claimants No.1 & 2 being mother and Sister of the deceased. Hence, they are entitled for 40:60 ratio respectively in the total compensation with accrued interest. On deposit of compensation, the claimant Nos.1 & 2 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. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 partly in Affirmative.SCCH-25 20 MVC No.7120/2023
27. Issue No.4:- In view of my findings to the above issues, the claimants are entitled for the compensation at the at rate of 6% P.A. from the respondent No.1. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the 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 tune of Rs.24,08,800/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Eight Thousand and Eight Hundred Only) together interest @ 6%pa from the date of petition till realization.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and directed to deposit the same within 60 days from the date of this judgment, after deducting any amount paid as the interim compensation.
The petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are entitled for 40:60 ratio respectively in the total compensation with accrued interest.
On deposit of compensation, the claimants Nos.1 & 2 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.SCCH-25 21 MVC No.7120/2023
All the interim application if any pending stands disposed off.
The advocate fee of Rs.1,000/- fixed.
Draw Decree accordingly.
(Directly typed and computerized by the stenographer, corrected by me and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 10th day of September, 2025).
(RAGHAVENDRA. R.) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, BANGALORE ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined for Petitioner:
PW.1 Sri. Ramachandra List of Documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR and complaint Ex.P2 True copy of Spot Mahazar Ex.P3 True copy of Spot sketch Ex.P4 True copy of IMV report Ex.P5 True copy of Inquest report Ex.P6 True copy of PM report Ex.P7 True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P8 True copy of Notice and reply u/sec.133 of MV Act Ex.P9 True copy of NOC from police Ex.P10 Embalming Certificate with death
certificate and Coffin maker's certificate SCCH-25 22 MVC No.7120/2023 Ex.P11 Notarized copy of Adhaar card of deceased and petitioners (3 in nos) Ex.P12 Notarized copy of PAN card of petitioner No.1 Ex.P13 Notarized copy of Ration card of family petitioner List of Witnesses examined for Respondent/s:
RW.1 Sri. Santhosh RW.2 Sri. Abhilash H.P.
List of documents exhibited for Respondent:
Ex.R.1 Authorization letter
Ex.R.2 Copy of Policy
Ex.R.3 Authorization letter
Ex.R.4 Certified copy of order sheet in
CC No.10211/2023
Ex.R.5 Certified copy of Judgment in
CC No.10211/2023
Ex.R.6 Copy of policy
Ex.R.7 Attested copy of RC
Ex.R.8 DL Extract
(RAGHAVENDRA.R)
XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT,
Bangalore.
Digitally signed by
RAMACHANDRAPPA
RAMACHANDRAPPA RAGHAVENDRA
RAGHAVENDRA
Date: 2025.09.10
16:41:35 +0530