Bangalore District Court
J. Krishnaiah vs Pulaganti Thulasamma on 22 August, 2025
SCCH 15 1 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020
KABC020181572020
IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND ACJM
AND ADDL. MACT., BENGALURU, (SCCH-15)
PRESENT: RESHMA JANE RODRIGUES
M.com., LL.M.,
XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge,
ACJM, Court of Small Causes
& Member,MACT-15, Bengaluru.
MVC No.4040/2020 & 4039/2020
Dated : This the 22nd day of August, 2025
Petitioner/s : Sri. J. Krishnaiah,
In MVC S/o Late Jangala Thippanna,
No.4040/2020 Aged about 60 years,
R/at Peddareddyvaripalli village
and post, Chinnamandem Mandal,
Cuddapah District,
Andhra Pradesh - 516 214.
Petitioner/s : 1. Sri. J. Krishnaiah,
In MVC S/o Late Jangala Thippanna,
No.4039/2020 Aged about 60 years.
2. Sri. J. Ramamurthy,
S/o J. Krishnaiah,
Aged about 30 years.
3. Sri. J. Gangaiah
SCCH 15 2 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020
S/o J. Krishnaiah,
Aged about 28 years.
4. Sri. J. Ananda
S/o J. Krishnaiah,
Aged about 23 years.
All are r/at Peddareddyvaripalli village
and post, Chinnamandem Mandal,
Cuddapah District,
Andhra Pradesh - 516 214.
5. G. Ramadevi
W/o G. Ravindra, D/o J. Krishnaiah,
Aged about 38 years.
R/at Pattikonda village,
Chittoor District,
Andhra Pradesh - 517432
(By Sri. M. Shivakumar, Adv)
V/s
Respondent/s 1. Smt. Pulaganti Thulasmma,
in both cases: W/o Pulaganti Nagesh, Major,
R/at No.1-203, Basinikonda,
Madanapalli Mandal,
Chittoor District,
Andhra Pradesh - 517325.
(Exparte)
2. The Cholamandalam MS Gen.
Ins. Co. Ltd., No.135/5, 15th cross,
2nd Floor, J.P. Nagar, 3rd Phase,
Bengaluru - 78.
(By Sri. Kiran Pujar, Adv)
SCCH 15 3 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020
JUDGMENT:
The claim petition No.4040/2020 emanates in respect of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner by name J. Krishnaiah in respect of the Road Traffic Accident dated 12.06.2020.
The claim petition No.4039/2020 emanates from the Motor Vehicle Accident dated 12.06.2020 wherein the petitioners have sought for compensation with respect to the death of Smt. Subbamma due to the impact of the accident.
2. Since both these Petitions arise out of the same accident and in view of the Order dated 24.03.2023 in MVC No.4040/2020, these two cases were clubbed together and taken for common disposal.
3. Succinctly stated the facts germane to the lis involved in this petition are briefly summarized as follows:
That on 12.06.2020 at about 12.00 p.m., when the Petitioner in MVC No.4040/2020 by name J. Krishnaiah & deceased Smt. Subbamma were proceeding as pillion riders in a SCCH 15 4 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020 TVS Star motorcycle bearing Reg.No.AP-03-AZ-353 ridden by the petitioner No.4 in MVC No.4039/2020 on the left side of the road and when they reached near Electric Sub-station, Madanapalli - Thambalapalli road, Madanapalli Mandal, at that time, one Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-03-TG-0004 driven by its driver, came from same direction in a rash and negligent manner and with high speed and dashed against the motorcycle resulting in the accident. Due to the said impact, they fell down and sustained grievous injuries to all over the body.
Immediately after the accident, Subbamma was shifted to government hospital and after first aid treatment she was shifted to SVRR hospital, wherein she treated as an inpatient.
But Subbamma succumbed to the injuries on 19.06.2020 while under treatment.
4. It is submitted that the Petitioner in MVC No.4040/2020 sustained injuries all over the body. He was shifted to government hospital, wherein he took first aid SCCH 15 5 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020 treatment and then shifted to Desai hospital, Madanapalli wherein petitioner took treatment as an inpatient. Hence, the petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with cost and interest at the rate of 12% p.a in the interest of justice and equity.
5. Consequently, on 13.06.2020 FIR No.87/2020 was registered with the Thamballapalle Police station under Sec.337 and 304(A) of IPC and charge sheet was filed under Sec.337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC and under sec.134(A) (B) r/w 187 of IMV Act.
6. The Petitioners submit that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bolero vehicle. It is submitted that the deceased was hale and healthy and aged about 55 years and working as a coolie and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month at the time of accident. Due to untimely death of the deceased the Petitioners have lost love, affection and support which has caused mental agony to the petitioners.
Hence, the petitioners have claimed compensation of SCCH 15 6 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020
Rs.25,00,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 12% p.a in the interest of justice and equity.
7. In pursuance of service of notice issued to the Respondents, Respondent No.1 remained absent and he was placed exparte.
Respondent No.2 filed Written Statement contending as follows:
The respondent No.2 admitted that it has issued insurance policy to the offending vehicle Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-03-TG-0004 in favour of the respondent No.1.
Without prejudice the liability of the respondent No.1 if any is subject to the validity of driving license and terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The driver of the said Bolero vehicle did not have valid and effective driving license. It is denied that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bolero vehicle. The age, avocation of the deceased and petitioner is denied. The petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Hence, on these SCCH 15 7 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020 grounds Respondent No.2 has prayed to dismiss the petition against it.
8. Vide order dated 03.09.2021 the following issues were framed by this Tribunal :-
ISSUES IN MVC No.4040/2020
1. Whether the petitioner proves that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of driving of Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-03-TG-0004?
2) Whether the petitioner proves the age and earnings of the petitioner as stated in the claim petition ?
3) Whether the Petitioner is entitled for the compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4) What Order or Award?
ISSUES IN MVC No.4039/2020
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that J.
Subbamma W/o J. Krishnaiah sustained injuries due to rash and negligent act of driving of Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing SCCH 15 8 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020 Reg.No.AP-03-TG-0004 on dated 12.06.2020 at about 12.00 noon and succumbed to the injuries?
2) Whether the Petitioners prove the age and earnings of the deceased as stated in the claim petition?
3) Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal heir of deceased J.
Subbamma W/o J. Krishnaiah?
4) Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom?
5) What Order or Award ?
9. In order to substantiate claim petition, the Petitioner No.1 in MVC No.4039/2020 and petitioner in MVC No.4040/2020 got examined himself as PW.1 relied upon Ex.P1 to 17 documents and the respondent No.2 got examined one witness as RW.1 and relied upon Ex.R1 and 2.
10. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has relied on the following provisions of law and citations:
SCCH 15 9 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020
1. ACJ 2020, between Mohammed Siddique and
another Vs. National Ins. Co. Ltd.,
2. SCC 2020 (II) SC, between National Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Bivendra and others.
3. Civil Appeal No.2323/2025 in SLP No.444/2025, between Seemavani and others Vs Oriental Ins. Co. ltd., & others.
11. The Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 has relied on the following provisions of law and citations:
1. MFA No.200185/2014 (MV), between Chand @ Chand pasha Vs KSRTC
2. MAC App No.954/2017, between Rehamani Begum & others Vs. Krishan Pal & others.
3. MFA No.6227/2008 (MV), between Usman Sheriff @ Thabroz Vs. S. Muniyappa & another
4. MFA No.12132/2005 (MV), between K.M. Shivalingaiah Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd., & another
6. Civil Appeal No.22266/2018, between Deep Shikha SCCH 15 10 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020 & another Vs. National Ins. Co. Ltd., & others.
7. MFA No.5445/2016 (MV), between Kullappa and others Vs. Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., and others
12. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for parties in this case. Having perused the records my issue wise findings run as under in MVC No.4040/2020 are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.4 : As per the final Order,
13. My answer to the Issues in MVC No.4039/2020 are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative. Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative Issue No.4 : Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.5 : As per the Final Order, for the following :
SCCH 15 11 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020
REASONS
14. Issue No.1 in MVC No.4040/2020 and 4039/2020:-
Before adjudication of the issue with respect to the compensation it is quintessential to adjudicate on the issue of negligence. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-03-TG-0004 (herein after referred to as the offending vehicle).
15. As far as the manner of the accident is concerned, petitioner in MVC No.4039/2020 has got himself examined as PW.1 and in his chief-examination he has deposed that on 12.06.2020 at about 12.00 p.m. he along with his wife Smt. Subbamma (deceased) were going to Thambalapalli from Peddareddyvaripalli as pillion riders in TVS Scooter bearing Reg.No.AP-03-AZ-353 ridden by their son by name J. Anand and near Electricity Sub-station, the Bolero Pickup vehicle SCCH 15 12 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020 bearing Reg.No.AP-03-TG-0004 came from the same direction with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and came to the extreme left side of the road and dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner, resulting in grievous injuries to the petitioner and death of Smt. Subbamma who succumbed to the injuries on 19.06.2020.
16. The petitioner in support of his claim has in addition to describing the course of the accident in line with the facts mentioned in the complaint has relied upon Ex.P1 to ExP6 documents. Ex.P1 is the FIR which is registered against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offenses under Sec.337 of IPC on the basis of the complaint given by Ravindra G on 13.06.2020 and Ex.P4 is charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offenses under Sec.337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC and Sec.134(A) & (B) r/w 187 of IMV Act. Ex.P5 is the IMV report which shows the damages sustained to the vehicles. Ex.P6 - wound certificate which shows that petitioner was admitted at Andhra Pradesh Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, SCCH 15 13 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020 Area hospital, Madanapalle, under the history of RTA on 12.06.2020 at about 2.40 p.m., which discloses that he had sustained injuries due to the impact of the accident. Further Ex.P9 and 10 - Inquest mahazar and PM report discloses that Smt. Subbamma succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said road traffic accident.
17. As far as the manner of the accident is concerned PW.1 is cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and in the cross-examination PW.1 has deposed that the accident took place in Chittoor district and admitted that he was proceeding along with his son and wife in the motorcycle and admitted that it was triple riding in motorcycle. He has deposed that after the accident he lost consciousness and denied that the accident took place due to negligence of his son. Except the suggestion that the accident has taken place due to the negligence on the rider of the motorcycle nothing much is elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1 to prove that the accident took place due to the negligence SCCH 15 14 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020 or rashness on the part of petitioner's side. The petitioner has clearly and categorically deposed about the manner of the accident. The oral testimony of PW.1 has stood unrebutted and PW1 has withstood the cross-examination of Respondent No.2.
There is no material on record which suggests falsity or untruth in the oral testimony of PW.1 as to the facts and circumstances surrounding cause of the accident. PW.1 has also declined the suggestion imputing the cause of the accident to be due to their own negligence. The fact that the driver of the offending vehicle has already been charge sheeted for the offenses under Sec. 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC and Sec.134(A) & (B) r/w 187 of IMV act itself is strong circumstance to support the oral testimony of PW.1. The certified copies of FIR, charge sheet, IMV report and Spot mahazar also corroborate the oral testimony of PW.1. In view of medical records there is no dispute regarding the nature of injuries sustained by PW.1 in the above accident. In view of the said discussion it is satisfactorily established that PW.1 suffered grievous injuries on account of rashness and SCCH 15 15 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020 negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Hence, issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioners and in the 'Affirmative' in the both cases.
18. Issue No.2 & 3 in MVC No.4040/2020:- In view of findings in issue No.1 in favour of petitioner the petitioner is entitled for just compensation. The computation of compensation will have to be decided separately under various heads.
19. MEDICAL OR TREATMENT EXPENSES: The petitioner / PW.1 has produced Ex.P6 - wound certificate which discloses that the petitioner has sustained one grievous injury and Ex.P7 is the discharge summary of Desai hospital which shows that the petitioner was treated as an inpatient from 16.06.2020 to 18.06.2020 and he has sustained contusion left parietal region with comminuted hand head fracture on joint slab. The petitioner has produced Ex.P8 - medical bills. Hence in view of the said medical bills the petitioner is entitled to an SCCH 15 16 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020 amount of Rs.21,845/- under this head.
20. PAIN AND SUFFERING : As per medical document the petitioner has sustained contusion left parietal region with comminuted hand head fracture on joint slab. It is not possible to ascertain quantum compensation admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc., which he actually suffered due to the accidental injuries. Keeping in view the trauma and nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded to him towards pain and sufferings. Thus, he is an awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- under this head.
21. LOSS OF ACTUAL EARNINGS: In his evidence PW.1 has submitted he was aged 60 years and he was working as coolie and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. In the absence of any material as to the monthly earnings of the Petitioner it would be proper to assume the monthly earnings of the petitioner as per the notional income as on the date of the SCCH 15 17 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020 accident, as per the guidelines of Lok-Adalat chart. As per the relevant period the notional income is taken as Rs.14,500/- p.m. Taking into consideration that the petitioner due to the injuries might not have been in a position to work for at least 1 months. Hence, as such the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.14,500X 3 = 43,500/- under this head.
22. LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS DUE TO DISABILITY:
The Petitioner has not adduced any evidence to show he has sustained permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Hence in the absence of any evidence it has to be concluded that the petitioner has sustained any permanent disability to the injuries sustained in the accident.
23. Loss of Amenities: In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the extent of inconvenience caused and the extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs.20,000/- under this head.
SCCH 15 18 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020
24. Attendant's charges, Special diet and Conveyance:
The facts show that physical condition of the petitioner is such that he might have to taken the help of an attendant. Further, he would be requiring conveyance for movement. His avocation has been hit and he might have spent considerable amount towards special diet during treatment. Therefore, petitioner is granted Rs.20,000/- under this head.
25. TOTAL COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED:
To sum up, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads :
1. Pain, shock & Suffering ₹ 30,000 /-
2. Loss of amenities ₹ 20,000/-
3. Loss of income during the laid up ₹ 43,500/-
period
4. Attendant's charges, Extra diet, ₹ 20,000/-
and conveyance
5. Medical expenses ₹ 21,845/-
SCCH 15 19 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020
6. Loss of Future Income ---
Total ₹ 1,35,345/-
Thus, totally the Petitioner is awarded compensation of ₹1,35,345/- with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of this petition till the date of realization.
26. Issue No.3 in MVC No.4039/2020: It is stated in the Petition as well as in the evidence of PW.1 that the Petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioner No.2 to 5 are the sons and daughter of the deceased Subbamma. To prove their relationship with the deceased, PW.1 has relied on Ex.P11 to 15 i.e., the Aadhaar cards of the Petitioners and deceased. The same shows the relationship between the Petitioners and the deceased. Hence, they have a right to apply for compensation due to death of Subbamma in RTA.
In the case of Seema Rani & Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors 2025 the Supreme Court reiterated SCCH 15 20 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020 that the major, married, and earning children of a deceased victim, as the legal representatives, have the right to apply for motor accident compensation. Reliance can also be placed on the dictum in National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender (2020), wherein it was expounded that "major married and earning sons of the deceased, being legal representatives, have a right to apply for compensation, and the Tribunal must consider the application, irrespective of whether the representatives are fully dependent on the deceased or not."
27. The Petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioner No.2 to 5 are the sons and daughter of the deceased, being the legal representatives of deceased Subbamma have a right to apply for compensation. As the Petitioners are the LRs of deceased Subbamma and also they have proved that the death of the Subbamma has been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
28. In the cross-examination of PW.1 he has admitted that he has 3 sons and one daughter and daughter is married SCCH 15 21 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020 and his sons are also majors and married and hence it is contended by the learned counsel for respondent No 2 that they cannot be considered as dependents of deceased.
29. In this regard the learned counsel for the respondent No 2 in the course of his arguments has relied on the decision laid down decision in Civil Appeal No.22265-22266 of 2018, Deep Shikha & another Vs. National Ins. Co. Ltd., & others, wherein it is held as under:
" once a daughter is married, logical presumption is that she now has rights on her matrimonial household and is also financially supported by her husband or his family, unless proven otherwise. It is more than likely that her dependence on her natal family, including her mother has now ceased. Sections 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 focus on the financial relationship between the deceased and the claimant. A married daughter may be considered a legal representative, as per Manjuri Bera, but she will not be eligible for loss of dependency compensation unless it is proven by the daughter that she was financially dependent on the deceased. Thus, it is clear from the record that appellant No.1 has failed to prove that she was being financially supported by her mother post marriage and hence cannot be said to be a dependent of her mother, the deceased."
MFA No.5445/2016 (MV), between Kullappa and others SCCH 15 22 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020 Vs. Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., and others, wherein it is held as under:
" on close reading of the said paragraph it makes very clear that the dependency must be established in order to claim compensation as stated in the above case. So, in the instant case, during the course of cross-examination of PW.1 it has been elicited that both the petitioners who are the present appellants before this court are independently working and in that light, his mother staying in their house does not arises and there is no dependency of the claimants over the deceased. So, in that light the tribunal has also rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled to receive any compensation under the head "loss of dependency."
30. The deceased had 3 sons and one daughter and daughter is married and his sons are also majors and married and they cannot be depending on the income of the deceased and hence though they have a right to apply for compensation however they cannot be considered as dependents of deceased. Hence I answer Issue No 3 in the Affirmative.
31. Issue No.2 and 4: Computation of compensation under the various heads is assessed as follows:
SCCH 15 23 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020
1. Loss of dependency
Age factor: In order to assess the compensation under the head of loss of dependency the age, avocation and income of the deceased needs to be ascertained. In the present case, the age of the deceased is shown as 55 years. Ex.P-1 is the Aadhaar card which shows that the birth year of the deceased is 1957. The alleged accident has taken place on 12.06.2020. Hence, by considering Ex.P11 the age of the deceased is taken as 63 years.
32. Avocation and Income: It is stated in the evidence that deceased was working as a coolie and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The Petitioners have not produced any documentary evidence to prove the actual income of the deceased. Hence in the absence of evidence to prove the actual income of the deceased the notional income will have to be taken into consideration. Looking into the age of the deceased and the avocation it is just and proper to fix the notional income of the deceased as Rs.14,500/- per month. Therefore, the SCCH 15 24 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020 Annual Income of the deceased would be 14,500X 12= 1,74,000/-. Hence for the purpose of computation of claim, the annual income of the deceased is taken as Rs.1,74,000/-.
33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma v. DTC, reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121 has established the golden principles in considering compensation in cases of death. Relevant part of the judgment at paras 18- 19 is reproduced hereunder:
"18. The criteria which are to be taken into consideration for assessing compensation in the case of death are: (i) the age of the deceased at the time of his death; (iii) the income of the deceased at the time of his death. The Points to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in these decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed SCCH 15 25 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020 evidence. It will be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay.
19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well-settled steps:
"Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a Table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said Table with reference to the age of the deceased."
Moving forward with the Point of future prospects, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680, held that Future prospects are to be awarded on the basis of:
(i) The nature of the deceased's employment; and
(ii) The age of the deceased.
SCCH 15 26 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020 Relying on Para 59.4 of Pranay Sethi (supra), while determining the income, there is no addition salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased age is more than 60 years.
34. At the time of the death of the deceased, she was survived by her husband and married daughter and sons. Hence while calculating the deductions towards the personal expenses, the number of dependents at the time of the death of the deceased is to be considered. As per the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India where the number of dependent of family members is one, ½ of the income of the deceased may be deducted towards her personal and living expenses.
35. In this Petition, the deceased was aged 63 years at the time of accident. "There should be no addition after 60 years." The income of the deceased was taken at Rs.14,500/- p.m.. Further, as per the principles laid down in decision reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Sarla Verma and Others Vs. SCCH 15 27 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020 Delhi Transport Corporation and another) the multiplier applicable is 7. In Sarla Verma's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has pleased to held that where the number of dependent of family member is one, ½ of the income of the deceased may be deducted towards her personal and living expenses.
36. After deducting ½ of the income towards her personal expenses in Rs.14,500/- it comes to Rs.7,250/- (14,500/- - 7,250/-) and multiplier applied is 7, (Rs.7,250/- x 12 x 7 = 6,09,000/-). Thus, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.6,09,000/- towards loss of dependency.
37. Medical expenses: The petitioners have not produced any medical bills to show any expenses incurred in the hospital. Hence the actual medical expenses incurred for the treatment of the deceased or any hospital charges are taken an Nil.
38. 'Loss of Estate', Loss of Consortium' and 'Funeral Expenses' In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme SCCH 15 28 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020 Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra), the conventional heads, namely, 'Loss of Estate', Loss of Consortium' and 'Funeral Expenses', amount of compensation is fixed as Rs. 15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-, respectively with an increase of 10% after a period of 3 years. It is further observed in the aforesaid Judgment amount should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. The said Judgment was rendered on 30.10.2017. By applying the said observation made in the aforesaid case, since, more than 6 years lapsed from the date of Order, the consortium fixed in the said case should be enhanced from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.48,400/-. Further, the loss of estate and funeral expenses also extended to Rs.18,150/- each. In view of the decision in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Satinder Kaur Alias Satwinder Kaur and Ors. (2021) 11 SCC 780, no compensation is to be granted under the head 'Loss of Love and Affection'.
In light of the above discussion, the claimants are awarded compensation as follows:
SCCH 15 29 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020
Sl.No. Head Amount
1 Annual Income 14,500X 12 Rs.1,74,000/-
2 Multiplicand ½ towards personal Rs.7,250/-
expenses of Rs.14,500/-, it comes to
Rs.7250/- (Rs.14,500/- - 7250/-)
3 Multiplier (As per Sarla Verma)
applied is 7 Rs.6,09,000/-.
(Rs.7,250/- x 12 x 7
4 Loss of dependency (A) Rs. 6,09,000/-
5 Funeral expenses (B) Rs. 18,150/-
6 Loss of estate (C) Rs. 18,150/-
7 Medical expenses incurred for the ----
treatment of deceased (D)
8 Loss of consortium (E)
48,400/- X 5
Rs. 2,42,000/-
9 Total Compensation awarded Rs.8,87,300/-
(A+B+C+D+E)
In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, the petitioners are entitled compensation amount of Rs.8,87,300/-.
39. Regarding Liability: This Court has arrived at the conclusion that the accident has been occurred by the rash and SCCH 15 30 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020 negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-03-TG-0004.
The Deputy Manager of respondent No.2 company is examined as RW.1 and he has admitted that the offending vehicle insured on the date of the accident and produced Ex.R2 insurance policy which shows that there was valid insurance to the offending vehicle. The only contention taken by respondent No.2 is that the deceased and insured and deceased and PW.1 were travelling with their son and its goes to show that triple riding and hence they have contributed to this accident. It is also submitted that the rider of the motorbike bearing Reg.No.AP-03-AZ-353 was not having valid DL as on the date of the accident and hence they have contributed to the accident.
The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 in the cross- examination of his argument has also relied on the decisions in
1. MFA No.200185/2014 (MV), between Chand @ Chand pasha Vs KSRTC SCCH 15 31 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020
2. MAC App No.954/2017, between Rehamani Begum & others Vs. Krishan Pal & others.
3. MFA No.6227/2008 (MV), between Usman Sheriff @ Thabroz Vs. S. Muniyappa & another
4. MFA No.12132/2005 (MV), between K.M. Shivalingaiah Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd., & another.
However the counsel for the petitioner on that other hand has relied on the decision in 2020 ACJ 751, between Mohammed Siddique and another Vs National Ins. Co. Ltd., & others, wherein it is held as under:
"Negligence - contributory negligence - triple riding
- pillion rider - car dashed against a motorcycle from behind resulting in death of one of the pillion riders
- High Court found that deceased was guilty of contributory negligence as he was riding pillion on the motorcycle with two other persons which could have added to the imbalance and deducted 10 percent of compensation towards contributory negligence - triple riding on a motorcycle is violation of the law but such violation cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence unless it is established that the act of riding along with two others contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim - no evidence that accident occurred as a result of three persons riding on the motorcycle and accident could have been averted if three persons were not riding SCCH 15 32 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020 on the motorcycle - motorcycle was hit by car from behind, deceased was wearing helmet and no evidence that 2 persons on the pillion added to the imbalance - whether pillion rider can be held guilty of contributory negligence on the ground of triple riding - held no."
(2020) 11 Supreme Court Cases 356, between National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Birender and others, wherein it is held as under:
"Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss. 166(1)(c) and 168 - compensation - entitlement to - whether major sons of deceased who are married and gainfully employed or earning, can claim compensation - their claim wound be maintainable under Sec.166(1)(c) - However, quantum of compensation would depend on extent of their dependency on the deceased parent - in present case, said major sons though earning a livelihood were still largely dependent on their deceased mother."
40. Hence, if the said decision taken into consideration merely because the rider of the motorcycle was not having DL and was triple riding is not conclusive to hold that it is a case of contributory negligence. If it is the case of the contributory negligence the charge sheet could not have filed against the rider of the motor cycle. In addition there is no cogent evidence SCCH 15 33 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020 to show that the rider of the motorcycle has contributed to the accident or to prove that he was rash or negligent. On the other hand offending vehicle has dashed the TVS from behind which goes to show that the negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. In addition the driver of the offending vehicle has not been examined in this case to prove that there is no negligence on their part. Therefore, the Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award amount. The Respondent No.2 being the insurer is liable to indemnify the Respondent No.1 and has to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioners in both cases. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 and 4 "Partly in the Affirmative" in MVC No.4039/2020 and Issue No.2 and 3 in 4040/2020.
41. Issue No.4 in MVC No.4040/2020 and Issue No.5 in MVC No.4039/2020: From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the Petitioners in MVC No.4039/2020 is entitled for compensation of Rs.8,87,300/- along with interest at the SCCH 15 34 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020 rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition.
The Petitioner in MVC No.4040/2020is entitled for total compensation of ₹1,35,345/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition.
In the result, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioner in MVC No.4040/2020 against the Respondents under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioners in MVC No.4039/2020 against the Respondent No.1 and 2 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Petitioner in M.V.C. No.4040/2020 is entitled for total compensation of ₹1,35,345/- along with cost and simple SCCH 15 35 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020 interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of the Award amount.
The Petitioners in M.V.C.
No.4039/2020 is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.8,87,300/- along with cost and simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of the Award amount.
The Respondent No.1 and 2 in both the cases are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioners.
The Respondent No.2 being the Insurer of the offending vehicle in both cases, is directed to deposit the Award amount and interest within 60 days from the date of the Award.
The entire amount awarded to the Petitioner in MVC No.4040/2020 is ordered to be paid to the Petitioner by way of E- payment and after his proper identification.
SCCH 15 36 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020 Compensation amount awarded to the Petitioner No.1 to 5 in MVC No.4039/2020 are apportioned among them are as shown below:
1) 80% to the Petitioner No.1.
2) 5% each to the Petitioner No.2 to 5.
After deposit of the Award amount and interest by the Respondent No.1, out of the amount awarded to the Petitioner No.1 in MVC No.4039/2020, 50% of the award amount is ordered to be paid to the Petitioner No.1 by way of E-payment and after his proper identification and the remaining 50% of the award amount shall be kept in Fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner No.1 in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank for a period of 3 years of his choice.
Since, the amount awarded to the Petitioner No.2 to 5 are meager, the entire amount awarded to Petitioner No.2 to 5 shall be released to them by way of E-
SCCH 15 37 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020
payment and after their proper
identification.
The Advocate fee is fixed at
Rs.1,000/- respectively in both cases.
Draw Award accordingly.
Keep the Original Judgment in M.V. C. No.4040/2020 and the copy of the Judgment in M.V.C. No.4039/2022.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of August, 2025.) (RESHMA JANE RODRIGUES) XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge, ACJM,Court of Small Causes & Member, MACT-15, Bengaluru.
SCCH 15 38 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020
Annexure
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioner :
P.W.1 : Sri. J. Krishnaiah Documents marked as Exhibits for the Petitioner :
Ex.P-1 : FIR Ex.P-2 : Complaint Ex.P2(a) : Translated copy of Ex.P2 Ex.P-3 : FIR Ex.P-4 : Charge sheet Ex.P-5 : IMV report Ex.P-6 : Wound certificate Ex.P-7 : Discharge summary Ex.P-8 : Medical bills Ex.P-9 : Inquest mahazar Ex.P9(a) : Kannada translated copy of Ex.P9 Ex.P-10 : PM report Ex.P-11 to 15 : Aadhaar cards Ex.P-16 : Complaint Ex.P-16(a) : Translated copy of Complaint Ex.P-17 : Alteration memo SCCH 15 39 MVC No.4040 & 4039/2020
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Respondents:
RW.1 : Sri. Santhosh Documents marked as Exhibits for the Respondents:
Ex.R1 : Authorization letter
Ex.R2 : Insurance policy
(RESHMA JANE RODRIGUES)
XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge,
ACJM, Court of Small Causes &
Member, MACT-15, Bengaluru.