Bangalore District Court
Shakunthala C R vs Girish H R on 1 December, 2025
KABC020291482024
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 1st DAY OF DECEMBER 2025
MVC Nos.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024
PETITIONER/s 1. Smt. C.R.Shakunthala
in MVC No.3893/2024: W/o Paramesha C.R.,
Aged about 48 years,
2. Sri. Paramesha C.R.
S/o Rangashetty C.B.,
Aged about 48 years,
3. C.P.Manohar
S/o Paramesha C.R.,
Aged about 16 years,
Minor, Rep. by his Mother,
C.R.Shakunthala
W/o Paramesha C.R.,
Aged about 48 years.
4. C.P.Muralidhar
S/o Paramesha C.R.,
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.3893/2024,
3894/2024 & 3895/2024
Aged about 16 years,
Minor, Rep. by his Mother,
Rep. by his Mother
C.R.Shakunthala.
W/o Paramesha C.R.,
Aged about 48 years.
All are R/at
Ganigara Beedi,
Channarayapatna Town,
Channrayapatna Taluk,
Hassan District - 573 116.
(By Smt. M.N.Nandini Urs,
Advocate.)
PETITIONER/s 1. Smt. Prithi C.Y
in MVC No.3894/2024: W/o Mahadeva,
Aged about 38 years,
2. Sri. Mahadeva
S/o Venkatesh,
Aged about 44 years,
3. Madan M.M.
Aged about 17 years,
Minor, Rep. by his
Mother Prithi C.Y.,
W/o Mahadeva,
Aged about 38 years,
All are R/at
No.35, Ward No.9,
A.D.Colony, Channarayapatna,
Hassan District - 573 116.
(By Smt. M.N.Nandini Urs,
Advocate.)
SCCH-25 3 MVC No.3893/2024,
3894/2024 & 3895/2024
PETITIONER/s Sri. Manjunatha K.B.
in MVC No.3895/2024: S/o Boregowda,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at No.192,
Agrahara Beedi,
Channarayapatna,
Hassan District - 573 116.
(By Smt. M.N.Nandini Urs,
Advocate.)
V/S
RESPONDENTS 1. Sri. Girish H.R.
in all the cases: S/o Ramgowda,
R/at No.23, Ward No.14,
Janatha Colony,
Behind Court,
Hassan Taluk &
District - 573 116.
(Owner of the Car bearing
Reg.No.KA-09-MH-7181)
(By Smt. Usharani B.R.,
Advocate.)
2. Sri. Dinesh Dhiman,
S/o Devaraj, R/at No.357,
3rd Cross, Near ICICI Bank,
H.D.Kote, Kuvenpunagar,
Mysore District - 570 023.
(Previous Owner and
Insurance holder of the Car
bearing Reg.No.KA-09-MH-
7181)
(Ex-parte)
SCCH-25 4 MVC No.3893/2024,
3894/2024 & 3895/2024
3. Cholamandalam MS
Gen. Ins. Co. ltd.,
Unit No.4, 9th Floor,
Level - 6, Golden Heights
Complex, 59th C Cross Road,
4th M Block,
Industrial Suburb,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 010.
(By Sri. Sunil Limar K.N.,
Advocate.)
COMMON JUDGMENT
These judgments arises out of claim petitions filed by the claimants against respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "Act") praying to award compensation in respect of the death of Sri.Kushal C.P. and Sri.Rakshith M.M. and injuries sustained by the petitioner Sri.Manjunatha K.B. in the road traffic accident occurred on 11.01.2024. Since the respondents in these Three cases are the same, these cases are consolidated and common evidence are ordered to be recorded in MVC No.3893/2024.
2. The case of the claimants in nutshell is SCCH-25 5 MVC No.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024 that:
On 11.01.2024 at about 10.45pm, the deceased in MVC No.3893/2024 And in MVC No.3894/2024 and the petitioner in MVC No.3895/2024 were traveling in a Car bearing Reg.No.KA-09-MH-7181 from Channarayapatna to Hassan to Celebrate Rakshith's birthday at Hassan, when the car has reached near Addihalli, NH-75, BM Road, Addihalli Village, Shanthigrama Hobli, Hassan District, the driver of the Car Drove the same with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life and hit to the electric pole which was on the left side of the Road. As a result, the Car fell on the pit which was on the road side. Due to impact, all have sustained grievous injuries but Rakshith (MVC No.3894/2024) succumbed on the spot.
3. It is the case of the petitioner in MVC No.3893/2024 that:
Immediately the deceased was shifted to Karna Hospital, Hassan for treatment. But the deceased not recovered from the injuries and died on 12.01.2024 at 5.30am. The body of the deceased shifted to Hassan Government Hospital for Post Mortem. The SCCH-25 6 MVC No.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024 PM was conducted at Hassan Government Hospital and the body was handed over to the family members of the deceased. They performed funeral and obsequies by spending Rs.1,00,000/-.
4. It is the further case of the petitioners that, due to sudden and sad demise of the deceased in the tragic accident the petitioners are undergoing deep mental shock pain and sufferings. Prior to the date of accident he was hale and healthy, working as Labor and earning a sum of Rs.1,000/- per day and contributed the entire income for the maintenance of his family. Due to untimely death of deceased, petitioners life has become dark and miserable and depressed and put to great financial hardship.
5. It is the case of the petitioner in MVC No.3894/2024 that:
After the accident the body of the deceased Rakshith was shifted to Hassan Government Hospital for Post Mortem. The PM was conducted at Hassan Government Hospital and the body was handed over to the family members of the deceased. They performed funeral and obsequies by spending Rs.1,00,000/-.SCCH-25 7 MVC No.3893/2024,
3894/2024 & 3895/2024
6. It is the further case of the petitioners that, due to sudden and sad demise of the deceased in the tragic accident the petitioners are undergoing deep mental shock pain and sufferings. Prior to the date of accident he was hale and healthy, working as Labor and earning a sum of Rs.1,000/- per day and contributed the entire income for the maintenance of his family. Due to untimely death of deceased, petitioners life has become dark and miserable and depressed and put to great financial hardship.
7. It is the further case of the petitioner in MVC No.3895/2024 that, Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Karna Multispecialty Hospital, Hassan for treatment, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient and took treatment from 12.01.2024 to 16.01.2024, undergone for surgery and discharged with advice. So far he has spent more than Rs.10,00,000/- towards hospitalization, conveyance, medical treatment, attendant and other incidental expenses. Due to the said accidental injuries, petitioner is suffering with permanent disability. He is not able to lead a normal life as prior to the accident.
SCCH-25 8 MVC No.3893/2024,3894/2024 & 3895/2024
8. It is the further case of the petitioner that, prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy, he was doing Labor work and earning Rs.1,000/- per day. Due to the accidental injuries, he became permanently disabled and unable to do his profession and not getting his income.
9. The accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent manner of driving by the driver of the offending Car bearing No.KA-09-MH-7181. The Shanthigrama Police have registered a case in their Cr.No.0007/2024 and filed charge sheet against the said driver p/u/Secs 279, 337 & 304(A) of IPC. The respondent No.1 being the RC owner and the Respondent No.2 being the previous Owner and insurance holder and Respondent No.3 being the insurer of the offending Car bearing No.KA-09-MH- 7181 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners in all the cases. Hence, in all the cases, each petitioners/petitioner prays for award for the total compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-, Rs.50,00,000/- and Rs.40,00,000/- respectively.
10. In response to the notice, the respondent SCCH-25 9 MVC No.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024 Nos. 1 and 3 have appeared through their respective counsels and filed separate written statements. In spite of due service of summons, the respondent No.2 did not appear hence, placed ex-parte.
10A. The respondent No.1 in the written statement has denied the entire petition averments except admitting the ownership of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-09-MH-7181 and insured with the Respondent No.3 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Further stated that the driver had a driving licnese to drive the Car. Further denied the age, occupation, income and expenses incurred towards funeral. Further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition against him.
10B. The respondent No.3 in the written statement has denied the entire petition averments except admitting the issuance of policy in respect Car bearing Reg.No.KA-09-MH-7181 in favour of Respondent No.1 valid from 20.06.2023 to 19.06.2024. The policy was in existence as on the date of accident. There is non compliance of Secs.
SCCH-25 10 MVC No.3893/2024,3894/2024 & 3895/2024 134(c) & 158(6) of MV Act. The driver of the said Car did not possess a valid driving license as on the date of accident. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Further denied the age, occupation, income and expenses incurred towards funeral. Further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition against it.
11. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed for determination.
(Issues in MVC No.3893/2024) Issue No.1: Whether the petitioners prove that, they are the legal representatives and dependents of the deceased Sri.Kushal C.P. ?
Issue No.2:Whether the petitioners prove that, the deceased Sri.Kushal C.P., had died due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident that occurred on 11.01.2024 at about 10:45pm, near Addihalli, N.H-75, BM Road, Addihalli village, Shanthigrama Hobli, Hassan, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of car bearing Reg.No.KA-09-MH-7181 as alleged?
SCCH-25 11 MVC No.3893/2024,3894/2024 & 3895/2024 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?
(Issues in MVC No.3894/2024) Issue No.1:Whether the petitioners prove that, they are the legal representatives and dependents of the deceased Sri.Rakshith M.M. ?
Issue No.2:Whether the petitioners prove that, the deceased Sri.Kushal C.P., had died due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident that occurred on 11.01.2024 at about 10:45pm, near Addihalli, N.H-75, BM Road, Addihalli village, Shanthigrama Hobli, Hassan, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of car bearing Reg.No.KA-09-MH-7181 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?
(Issues in MVC No.3895/2024) Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner proves that, the accident occurred on 11-01-2024 at 10:45pm due to SCCH-25 12 MVC No.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024 rash and negligent driving of driver of Car bearing Reg.No.KA-09-MH-
7181 and in the said accident petitioner sustained injuries?
Issue No.2:Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? Form whom?
Issue No.3: What order or Award?
12. In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioner No.1 in MVC No.3893/2024 & 3894/2024 have examined themselves as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.15. The Petitioner in MVC No.3895/2024 got examined himself as PW.3 and got marked Exs.P.16 to P.21.
Dr.S.A.Somashekara got examined as PW.4 and got marked Exs.P.22 & P.23. On the other side, the respondent No.1 got examined himself as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.3. The Respondent No.3 has got examined its official as RW.2 and got marked Exs.R.4 and R.5.
13. I have heard the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties.
14. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties before this tribunal, my SCCH-25 13 MVC No.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024 answers to the above issues (in all cases) are as follows:
Case No. Issue No.1 Issue No.2 Issue No.3 Issue No.4 MVC Partly in In the Partly in the As per 3893/2024 the affirmative affirmative final affirmative Order MVC Partly in the In the Partly in the As per 3894/2024 affirmative affirmative affirmative final Order MVC In the Partly in the As per final 3895/2024 affirmative affirmative Order #REASONS#
15. Issue Nos.1 in MVC 3893/2024, MVC 3894/2024: To prove the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased, they have produced notarized copy of Ration Card and Aadhar Cards of the deceased at Exs.P.10, 11 and P.14, 15. Exs.P.2, 12 Inquest reports also shows the names and relationship of the petitioners with the deceased.
16. It is worth to note herein that the deceased of these two cases are bachelors. It is well settled principle of law that the brother of the deceased would not became a dependant SCCH-25 14 MVC No.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024 unless contrary proved. The petitioners have not placed cogent evidence to hold that the brothers have also totally dependent on the income of the deceased. In this regard, I would like to rely on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 1 (2021) 11 SCC 780 n paragraph No.8 (a) that:
"If the deceased was a bachelor and claim was filed by the parents, the deduction would normally 50% as personal and living expenses of the bachelor.
Subject to evidence to the contrary, the father was likely to have his own income, and would not considered to be a dependent. Hence, the mother alone will be considered to be a dependant.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters of the deceased bachelor would not be considered to be a dependents because they would usually either be independent and earning or married, or dependent on the father."
The cause title of the petition, itself indicates that father of both deceased cases have pulling their family by doing some kind of occupation though no 1 United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others SCCH-25 15 MVC No.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024 reference about occupation in the petition, as such n view of the above decision, the brothers of the deceased persons are not dependents. Hence, I answer issue No.1 in MVC No.3893-3894/2024 partly in affirmative.
17. Issue No.1 in MVC No.3895/2024, Issue No.2 in MVC No.3893 and 3894-2024: As I referred above, In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioner No.1 in MVC 3893/2024 and MVC 3894/2024 -Mothers of both case deceased have examined as Pws.1 & 2 and the petitioner in MVC 3895/2024 got examined himself as PW.3. The petitioner in MVC No.3895/2024 have also got examined Dr.S.A.Somashekara as PW.4. Exs.P1 to 21 were marked through Pws.1 to 3. The PW.4 has got marked Ex.P22 & 23. The Respondent No.1 got examined himself as RW.1 and the Respondent No.3 got examined its official as RW.2 and Exs.R.1 to 5 got marked through them. The details of the exhibits are given in the annexure of the judgment.
18. The chief examination of the PWs.1 to 3 are nothing but a repetition of plaint averments. These witnesses have been subjected to cross SCCH-25 16 MVC No.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024 examination. The relevant portion of the Pws.1 to 3 are herewith reproduced:
The Pws.1 & 2 have deposed that: the Car belongs to Girish. Further she has denied the material suggestions in the cross examination.
The PW.3 has deposed that, he deposed they are all work friends. They were doing welding work. Girish is the owner of the Car. He did not give complaint or statement to the police. Girish was driving the Car when we were going to Hassan. They suffered the accident while going to celebrate drinks party for Rakshith's birthday in the Car. Further she has denied the material suggestions in the cross examination.
19. 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 can be gathered from the cross examination of the Pws.1 to 3, the insurer did not seriously disputing the manner of accident. But their main contention is that the insured vehicle has been used for commercial purpose. The insurer has cross examined the driver of the car on this lane. But, nothing has been elicited.
SCCH-25 17 MVC No.3893/2024,3894/2024 & 3895/2024
20. The Respondent No.3 has got examined its official as RW.2 and got marked Exs.R.4 & 5. He has been subjected to cross examination. During the cross examination of RW.2, he has admitted that after receipt of the payment as per Sec.64 B its been compliance. Further admitted that the policy was issued from them.
21. That the police documents ae clearly depicts that the alleged accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. A perusal of the charge sheet, the police have submitted the charge sheet against the accused or driver of the offending vehicle which is belongs to respondent No.1 and further the police have charge sheeted against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offense punishable under section 279, 337, 338 & 304(A) of IPC and also filed under Sec.181 of MV Act. As per the police document viz., Ex.R2, the driver of the offending vehicle having Valid driving license of LMV and MCWG till 06.04.2033. Hence, it can be hold that the driver of the offending vehicle has possessed the valid driving license at the time of accident.
22. The Court cannot adopt strict liability as SCCH-25 18 MVC No.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024 conducted in a criminal case to prove rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the respondent vehicle. But there should be prima-facie materials regarding rash and negligence to fix the owner and insurance company for payment of compensation. Therefore, a straight jacket formula cannot be adopted in accepting the rash and negligence on the part of driver of the insured. 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.2 in MVC 3893/2024, MVC 3894/2024 and Issue No.1 in MVC 3895/2024 in the affirmative.
23. Issue No.3 in MVC 3893/2024:
The Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 being the mother, father and Brothers of the deceased. It is contention of the petitioners that the deceased was doing Labor work and earning of Rs.1,000/- Per day. 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 19 years. The Aadhar Card of the deceased at Ex.P.11 discloses SCCH-25 19 MVC No.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024 that the deceased age was 19 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.16,500/-pm is calculated to award loss of earning, it would meets the ends of justice. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2017) 16 SCC 680, if an 2 injured/dead 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.16,500/- and the deceased comes below the age of 40 years slab then 40% of future prospects of his income would come to Rs.6,600/- then after adding the future prospects to his total income it comes to Rs.23,100/-. As per Sarala Varma's case the multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 18. As I referred above, the petitioner No.3 and 4 have not be considered as the dependents of the deceased. In this case deceased is a Bachelor, if the deceased is a bachelor then ½ of his income 2 National Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi and others SCCH-25 20 MVC No.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024 has to deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Then the total income of the deceased would come Rs.11,550/-
(Rs.23,100/- - Rs.11,550/- = Rs.11,550/-). The loss of dependency is calculated as below. Rs.11,550/- (monthly income) x 12 x 18 (multiplier) =Rs.24,94,800/-. This is just and proper compensation under the head of loss of dependency.
LOSS OF ESTATE
24. 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.18,150/- in lump sum under the head of loss of estate.
FUNERAL EXPENSES
25. In view of the Pranay Sethi's case this tribunal has no option but to award Rs.18,150/- under this head. Except these heads the claimants are not entitled for any compensation.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
26. The Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 being the parents are entitled for '"Filial Consortium' in view of the SCCH-25 21 MVC No.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024 judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130. Hence a sum of Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,400/- each) is awarded under this head.
27. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation under the following heads.
Sl. Name of the Head Awarded
No. Compensation
01. Loss of dependency Rs.24,94,800=00
02. Towards loss of estate Rs.18,150=00
03. Towards Funeral expenses Rs.18,150=00
04. Loss of Consortium Rs.96,800=00 TOTAL Rs.26,27,900-00
28. APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION:
The claimants No.1 and 2 being the mother and father of the deceased. Hence, they are entitled for 60:40 ratio respectively. On deposit of compensation, the claimant No.1 and 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 the Affirmative.
3 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram SCCH-25 22 MVC No.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024
29. Issue No.3 in MVC 3894/2024:
The Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 being the mother, father and younger brother of the deceased. As I discussed in supra, the petitioner No.3 has not considered as dependent on the deceased. It is contention of the petitioners that the deceased was doing Labor work and earning of Rs.1,000/- Per day. 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 20 years. The Aadhar Card of the deceased at Ex.P.15 discloses that the deceased age was 20 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.16,500/-pm is calculated to award loss of earning, it would meets the ends of justice. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 4(2017) 16 SCC 680, if an injured/dead person is below 40 years, then 40% 4 National Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi and others SCCH-25 23 MVC No.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024 of future prospects should be added to his monthly income. So, the monthly income of deceased is Rs.16,500/- and the deceased comes below the age of 40 years slab then 40% of future prospects of his income would come to Rs.6,600/- then after adding the future prospects to his total income it comes to Rs.23,100/-. As per Sarala Varma's case the multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 18. In this case deceased is a Bachelor, if the deceased is a bachelor then ½ of his income has to deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Then the total income of the deceased would come Rs.11,550/-
(Rs.23,100/- - Rs.11,550/- = Rs.11,550/-). The loss of dependency is calculated as below. Rs.11,550/- (monthly income) x 12 x 18 (multiplier) =Rs.24,94,800/-. This is just and proper compensation under the head of loss of dependency.
LOSS OF ESTATE
30. 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.18,150/- in lump sum under the head of loss of estate.
SCCH-25 24 MVC No.3893/2024,3894/2024 & 3895/2024 FUNERAL EXPENSES
31. In view of the Pranay Sethi's case this tribunal has no option but to award Rs.18,150/- under this head. Except these heads the claimants are not entitled for any compensation.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
32. The Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 being the parents are entitled for '"Filial Consortium' in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 5 (2018) 18 SCC 130. Hence a sum of Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,400/- each) is awarded under this head.
33. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation under the following heads.
Sl. Name of the Head Awarded
No. Compensation
01. Loss of dependency Rs.24,94,800=00
02. Towards loss of estate Rs.18,150=00
03. Towards Funeral expenses Rs.18,150=00
04. Loss of Consortium Rs.96,800=00
TOTAL Rs.26,27,900-00
5
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram SCCH-25 25 MVC No.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024
34. APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION:
The claimants No.1 and 2 being the mother and father of the deceased. Hence, they are entitled for 60:40 ratio respectively. On deposit of compensation, the claimant No.1 and 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 the Affirmative.
35. Issue No.2 in MVC No.3895/2024:
The petitioner has produced the wound certificate and discharge summary from the concerned hospital. The wound certificate (Ex.P16) discloses that, the petitioner has sustained (1) Tenderness, swelling, Crepihu over left leg, Fracture BB Leg (L), (2) Tenderness + Over lower back, (3) Lacerated wound over postero medical aspect of middle 1/3rd leg left, (4) Lacerated wound over posterior aspect of middle 1/3rd leg leg, (5) Superficial abrasion over anterior aspect of middle 1/3rd leg left and (6) Superficial abrasion over anterior aspect of knee joint above patella (Right).
Out of these injuries, injury Nos.1 and 2 are grievous in nature and 3, 4, 5 and 6 are simple in nature.
SCCH-25 26 MVC No.3893/2024,3894/2024 & 3895/2024
36. In this regard, the petitioner has got examined Dr.S.A.Somashekar as PW.4. The PW.4 has stated in the chief examination affidavit paragraphs that "upon clinical examination it is found that the petitioner has sustained fracture both bones left leg and L2 compression fracture. He underwent surgery in the form of CRIF with IMIL nailing of tibia under SA on 12.01.2024 and Posterior stablization of L1, L2 and L3 by pedicie screws and rods on 15.02.2024. Further stated that, the petitioner has complains pain and difficulty in walking and climbing stairs, instability of left knee, low back ache persistent, inability to squat and sit cross legged, inability to bend forward and lift weight and inability to work as a Welder. On examination PW.4 found that the petitioner walks with pain and limping, wasting and shortening of left lower limb is seen, surgical and secondary scars are seen over left leg and instability of left knee is elicited. TL Spine: surgical scars are seen. Tenderness is elicited. PSMS is seen. X-ray shows L2 fracture stablized with pedicle screws and rods. Non-union fracture tibia left with implants in situ and united fracture fibula. PW.4 has opined that the petitioner has disability of left lower limb at 44% SCCH-25 27 MVC No.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024 and that of his whole body at 22%. L2 fracture stabilized with persistent LBA - 20%. Patient is said to be a Welder and with the said disabilies he cannot carryout his work/any manual work.
The PW.4 has been subjected to cross examination. During the cross examination, he has stated that he has not treated the petitioner. He has examined the petitioner in his hospital and produced the clinical notes and X-ray. As per the Discharge summary and wound certificate he has assessed the examination. He has not seen the original earlier medical records except discharge summary and wound certificate. He has not given avocational disability, petitioner can do his day to day activities with very difficulties. The fracture of tibia is not not united and the fracture of spine and fibula is united. Implants are in situ in both site. Further admitted that he has seen the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate. There is no fracture in femur. After the treatment of one month of accident, the petitioner has undergone the surgery for spine. The another surgery is required for union of tibia fracture.
37. Before discussing on this point, it is necessary to advert to the observations made by the SCCH-25 28 MVC No.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024 Hon'ble Supreme Court in 6 Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned".
38. Our Hon'ble High Court has held in a case MFA.811 OF 2015 (MV-I) decided on 18 July, 2019 in between Rajanna @ Raju and another V/s Srinivas and another that "It is necessary to understand the meaning of the expression "permanent disability", which has been elucidated in Rajkumar. 6 2011 ACJ 1 SCCH-25 29 MVC No.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024 According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ("the Disabilities Act", for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation.
SCCH-25 30 MVC No.3893/2024,3894/2024 & 3895/2024
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is
permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent,
whether it is permanent total disablement or
permanent partial disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the person."
39. By considering the dictums of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Our Hon'ble High Court and also evidence led by the medical officer, It is appears to Court that, the petitioner has sustained grievous and simple injuries. And it certainly affected on functioning over the left leg. The petition discloses that the petitioner is a Labor. The evidence of the medical officer clearly clinches that on clinical examination, the medical officer has pointed out that the petitioner is required further treatment or follow up treatment and also implants should be remove. However the injuries affected to petitioner, certainly effects on his day to day activities and also extra SCCH-25 31 MVC No.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024 curriculum activities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in a judgment/decision of 7ALIVELI MALLAREDDY Vs SURTHANI LINGANNA @ CHINNA LINGANNA & Others. in paragraph No.10 "This evidence has been dealt with by the High Court in extenso and having regard to the fact that the Almanco Manual would suggest that the disability when not assessed to the whole body, the disability to the lower limb will be 1/5 and upper limb be ¼ of the disability assessed."
By considering the age, nature of injuries and treatment, it is appears to Court that the petitioner has suffered functional disability 8.8%. As such, the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability of 8.8% whole body. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for the compensation under the following heads.
PECUNIARY DAMAGES I. Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and misc. expenditures.
40. The claimant has contended that he has taken treatment at Karna Multispecialty Hospital, 7 CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19636 of 2024) dated 07.04.2025 SCCH-25 32 MVC No.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024 Hassan, admitted as an inpatient and took treatment from 15.02.2024 to 19.02.2024, underwent surgery of L2 compression fracture and discharged with advice. After discharge also he took outpatient treatment and till today he is under medication. Ex.P18 Discharge summary further indicates that the petitioner got admitted in the hospital on 15.02.2024 to 19.02.2024. The documents placed by the petitioner indicates that he has taken treatment before the said hospital. To prove the same, the Petitioner has produced the discharge summary. The petitioner has produced medical bills at Ex.P.19 for a sum of Rs.1,64,237/-. There is no contrary to these bills from the respondents. On careful perusal of the medical bills, there is no repeated bills. Hence, I award a sum of Rs.1,64,237/- as compensation to the claimant under the head of treatment and medical expenses. As supra said, the petitioner has admitted in the said Hospital as an inpatient. It can be seen at Ex.P.18 as per this document, petitioner admitted on 15.02.2024 to 19.02.2024 for about 4 days. Hence, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.500/-per day for attendant and Rs.500/- for food and nourishment charges, which would comes Rs.4,000/-. A sum of Rs.4,000/- is awarded under SCCH-25 33 MVC No.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024 the head of attendant, food and nourishment charges.
(ii) LOSS OF EARNING
41. The claimant has contended that, he was a Lobour and earning earning of Rs.1,000/- per day. To prove the same, he has not produced any documents like pay slips, vouchers, Bank Statement etc., He has failed to prove his exact income. So, considering the nature of work notional income of Rs.16,500/-pm. is calculated to award loss of earning, it would meets the ends of justice. Therefore, I award Rs.2,200/- to the claimant under the head of loss of earning during the treatment.
(b) LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING ON ACCOUNT OF PERMANENT DISABILITY:
42. The claimant has examined the Doctor to substantiate the disability as Pw.4. As already discussed above, the petitioner was suffered disability. By considering the nature of injuries and treatment, it is appears to Court that the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability of 8.8%. As per the petition averments, the age of the claimant is 22 years. The Aadhar Card of the petitioner marked at Ex.P17 clearly discloses that, the age of SCCH-25 34 MVC No.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024 the petitioner was 22 years. Therefore, the age of the claimant is considered as 22 years to assess the loss of future earning and the multiplier is 18. As I have already stated the notional income of the claimant is Rs.16,500/-pm, The loss of future earning is calculated as Rs.16,500/- (Monthly income) X 12 (Months) X 18 (multiplier) X 8.8 (disability)÷100 =Rs.3,13,632/- which is the just and proper compensation payable to claimant.
NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES (GENERAL DAMAGES)
(iii) Damages for pain and suffering and trauma consequence of the injuries.
43. The claimant has undergone pain and suffering during the accident and during the rehabilitation period. Therefore, I award Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant under the head of pain and suffering.
44. As per the version of PW.4, the Petitioner needs another surgery for achieving union which would cost around Rs.50,000/-. In this regard neither the petitioner nor PW.4 has produced any estimation bill about further surgery. As per the evidence of Pws.1 & 4 and looking at the earlier SCCH-25 35 MVC No.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024 treatment cost and the evidence on record, it appears it would be justifiable if an amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner under the head of Future Medical Expenses.
MARRIAGE PROSPECTS
45. On perusal of injuries, medical treatment details and Exs.P.22 & 23/clinical notes and X-ray, he got operated to L2 fracture stabilized with persistent LBA which is permanent in nature. Therefore, it effects on his marriage due to the disability suffered by him. Therefore, looking at the nature of injuries, evidence on record, it appears it would be justifiable if an amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded. In support of my view, I would like to rely on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 8(2023) 14 SCC 275 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 786.
46. The claimant in all entitled for just compensation under the following heads:
8 Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., SCCH-25 36 MVC No.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024 Sl. NATURE OF THE HEADS COMPENSATION No. 01 Medical Expenses Rs.1,64,237=00 02 Loss of income during Rs.2,200=00 treatment 03 Attendant, Food & Rs.4,000=00 Nourishment charges 04 Pain and Suffering Rs.1,00,000=00 05 Loss of future earning on Rs.3,13,632=00 account of disability 06 Future Medical Expenses Rs.20,000=00 07 Marriage Prospects Rs.50,000=00 TOTAL Rs.6,54,069=00
47. The next question is the liability to pay the said compensation. As I referred above the accident was occurred due rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. The police was in policy. The insurer has failed to prove that the offending vehicle was used for commercial purpose. Hence respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, the respondent No.3 has to indemnify the respondent No.1 in paying the compensation to the petitioners in all the cases.. Hence, I answer Issue No.3 in MVC SCCH-25 37 MVC No.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024 3893/2024, 3894/2024 & Issue No.2 in MVC 3895/2024 held partly in affirmative.
48. Issue Nos.4 in MVC No.3893, 3894/ 2024 & issue No.3 in MVC No.3895/2024:- In view of my findings to the above points, I proceed to pass the following:
-: ORDER :-
The claim petitions filed by claimants under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are allowed in part.
The Respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and directed to deposit the same within 60 days from the date of this judgment.
The Petitioner No.1 and 2 of MVC No.3893/2024 are entitled for compensation of Rs.26,27,900=00 (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Only) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The claimants No.1 and 2 are SCCH-25 38 MVC No.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024 entitled for 60:40 ratio respectively.
On deposit of compensation, the claimant No.1 and 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.
The Petitioner No.1 and 2 of MVC No.3894/2024 entitled for compensation of Rs.26,27,900=00 (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Only) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The claimants No.1 and 2 are entitled for 60:40 ratio respectively.
On deposit of compensation, the claimant Nos.1 and 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.
The Petitioner of MVC
No.3895/2024 is entitled for
compensation of Rs.6,54,069/-
SCCH-25 39 MVC No.3893/2024,
3894/2024 & 3895/2024
(Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Four
Thousand Sixty Nine Only) with
interest at 6% per annum from the
date of petition till realization
except on future medical expenses.
On deposit of compensation, petitioner is entitled to withdraw 70% and remaining 30% shall be invested as FD in the name of the petitioner for a period of 3 years in any N/S Bank.
The Advocates fee of Rs.1,000/- fixed.
Keep the copies of this judgment in MVC Nos.3894/2024 & 3895/2024.
Draw the award accordingly. (Directly typed and computerized by the stenographer, corrected by me then pronounced in the open Court on this the 1st day of December, 2025) (RAGHAVENDRA R.) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, Bangalore.SCCH-25 40 MVC No.3893/2024,
3894/2024 & 3895/2024 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the Petitioner:
PW.1 : Smt. C.R.Shakunthala
PW.2 : Smt. Prithi C.Y.
PW.3 : Sri. Manjunatha K.B.
PW.4 : Dr. S.A.Somashekara
List of documents marked for the petitioner:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR with Complaint
Ex.P2 True copy of Inquest mahazar
Ex.P3 True copy of Death memo
Ex.P4 True copy of Police intimations 4 in nos
Ex.P5 True copy of Spot and seizure mahazar
Ex.P6 True copy of spot sketch
Ex.P7 True copy of PM report
Ex.P8 True copy of IMV report
Ex.P9 True copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P10 Notarized copy of Ration Card of
petitioners family (compared with original and returned) Ex.P11 Notarized copy of Adhaar cards of petitioners and deceased 5 in nos (compared with originals and same are returned) SCCH-25 41 MVC No.3893/2024, 3894/2024 & 3895/2024 Ex.P12 True copy of Inquest mahazar Ex.P13 True copy of PM report Ex.P14 Notarized copy of Ration Card of petitioners family (compared with original and returned) Ex.P15 Notarized copy of Adhaar cards of petitioners and deceased 4 in nos (compared with originals and same are returned) Ex.P16 True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P17 Notarized copy of Adhaar card of petitioner (compared with original and returned) Ex.P18 Discharge summary Ex.P19 Medical bills 27 in nos Ex.P20 Discharge summary Ex.P21 Medical Bills Ex.P22 Clinical notes and registration slip collectively marked Ex.P23 X-ray List of witnesses examined for the Respondents.
RW.1 Sri. Girish
RW.2 Sri. Santhosh
SCCH-25 42 MVC No.3893/2024,
3894/2024 & 3895/2024
List of documents marked for the Respondents:
Ex.R.1 Attested copy of RC
Ex.R.2 Attested copy of DL
Ex.R.3 Attested copy of Aadhar Card
Ex.R.4 Authorization letter
Ex.R.5 Copy of Policy
(RAGHAVENDRA R.)
XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT,
Bangalore.
Digitally signed by
RAMACHANDRAPPA
RAMACHANDRAPPA RAGHAVENDRA
RAGHAVENDRA
Date: 2025.12.08
15:14:34 +0530