Bangalore District Court
Lakshmamma vs Magma Hdi Gen Ins Co Ltd on 1 April, 2026
KABC020374232024
BEFORE THE COURT OF 10th ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT:
BENGALURU
(SCCH-16)
Present: Sri. Mohammed Yunus Athani
B.A.,LL.B.,
X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.4358/2024
Dated this 1st day of April, 2026
Petitioners: 1. Lakshmamma W/o Narayanappa,
Aged about 53 years,
2. Narayanappa S/o Late Byrappa @
Beerappa,
Aged about 63 years,
Both are residing at No.13/68,
Hulikunte Village, Rolla Mandalam,
Madakasira Taluk,
Ananthapur/Satya Sai District.
& Also at No.13, 1st Floor,
10th Cross, Bagalagunte,
Bengaluru - 560 073.
(Sri Narasimha Murthy, Advocate)
V/s
2 MVC No.4358/2024
Respondents: 1. M/s MAGMA HDI General Insurance
Company Limited,
No.36, H.M. Astraid, J.C. Road,
Minerva Circle, Journalist Colony,
Kalasipalya, Bengaluru - 560 002.
(Insurer of Mahindra Tractor
No.KA-43-T-2372-2373, I.P.
No.P0025300004/4107/100025 valid
from 04-04-2024 to 03-04-2025)
(Sri K.M. Ravi, Advocate)
2. Chikkamuthrayappa S/o Late
Gangamuthaiah,
No.133, Kathi Hosahalli,
Koligere, Doddaballapur Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District.
(Owner of Mahindra Tractor bearing
Reg. No.KA-43-T-2372-2773)
(Sri Gangaiah, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- from the respondents, on account of death of Ramakrishna, 3 MVC No.4358/2024 who is son of petitioners No.1 and 2, in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 20-05-2024, at about 5.15 p.m., the deceased Ramakrishna was riding his Bajaj CT 110 motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-53-HK-2706 from Hulikunte side to Avalahalli via NH-648 Dabaspet-Doddaballapura road. When he reached near MRPL Petrol Bunk, Kathihosahalli, at that time a Mahindra tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-43-T-2372-2373 came from opposite direction, driven by its driver with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased and caused the accident. Due to the said impact, the deceased suffered fatal injuries and died on the spot. Earlier to the accident the deceased was working as driver and was earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. He was contributing his entire earnings to his family. Due to untimely death of a sole bread earner, the petitioners are struggling for their livelihood. The Doddabelavangala Police 4 MVC No.4358/2024 have registered the case against the driver of the said tractor for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC. The respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition and award compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- with interest.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the respondents No.1 and 2 have appeared through their respective counsel and filed their separate written statements.
4. The respondent No.1 in its written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has admitted the issuance of commercial vehicle package miscellaneous group of vehicle policy in respect of the tractor and trolley bearing No.KA-43-T-2372 and No.KA-43-T-2373 and its liability, subject to the terms and conditions of the said 5 MVC No.4358/2024 policy. Further it is contended that, the driver of the insured vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the tractor and trolley bearing No.KA-43-T-2372 and No.KA-43-T- 2373 at the time of accident. The owner of the said vehicle knowingly entrusted the vehicle to a person who was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the same. As as per its internal investigation, at the time of accident the son of owner of said vehicle was driving the said tractor and trailer and he was not holding driving licence to drive the said vehicle and hence the accused Chandrashekarachar S/o Late Hunumachar was implanted as driver of said vehicle at the time of accident. There is a willful breach of terms and conditions of the policy by the owner of the insured vehicle and hence, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petiitoners and the petition against this respondent is liable to be dismissed. Further it is contended that, the insured vehicle was not having permit to ply the said vehicle in a place of accident i.e. public place and the same 6 MVC No.4358/2024 was used without having valid permit in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. Further, it seeks protection under Section 147 and 149 of Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the petition is bad for non-compliance of provision under Section 134(c) and 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act. It has denied the involvement of the insured vehicle in the alleged accident. Further, it has denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased. Further it is contended that, the accident in question has not occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of insured vehicle, as the same was being driven slowly, carefully and cautiously and on the correct side of the road. The unfortunate accident has occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased, who was riding his motorcycle without wearing helmet, without holing driving licence and without following traffic rules and regulations. The accident has taken place due to the negligence of the deceased himself. Further it is contended 7 MVC No.4358/2024 that, the owner and insured of the motorcycle bearing No.KA- 53-HK-2706 are also necessary and proper parties to the case, without impleading them the case is not maintainable. The compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. Further, it has sought permission to contest even on behalf of respondent No.2, as per Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. For the above denials and contentions, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Whereas, the respondent No.2 in his written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. He has contended that, as on the date of accident the insurance policy was inforce, it was valid from 04-04-2024 to 03-04-2025, his driver was holding valid driving licence and the said vehicle was having registration certificate and fitness certificate issued by the transport authority. For the above denials and contentions, it is prayed to dismiss the petition. 8 MVC No.4358/2024
6. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, the deceased Ramakrishna S/o Narayanappa has succumbed to the injuries sustained in road traffic accident, alleged to have been occurred on 20-05-2024, at about 5.15 p.m., on NH-648, Doddaballapura-Dabaspete road, near MRPL Petrol Bunk, Kattihosahalli, Bengaluru Rural, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor bearing registration No.KA-43-T-2372-2373 ?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?
7. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.2 has got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked total 18 9 MVC No.4358/2024 documents as Ex.P.1 to 18. They have also examined one more witness namely Babu as P.W.2. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has examined himself as R.W.1 and got marked 3 documents as Ex.R.1 to 3. The respondent No.1 has examined the driver of the offending vehicle, its representative/Legal Manager and its Investigator as R.W.2 to R.W.4 respectively and got marked 4 documents as Ex.R.4 to 7.
8. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the entire material placed on record.
9. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
10. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioners that, on 20-05-2024, at about 5.15 p.m., when the deceased 10 MVC No.4358/2024 Ramakrishna was riding his Bajaj CT 110 motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-53-HK-2706 from Hulikunte side to Avalahalli via NH-648 Dabaspet-Doddaballapura road and reached near MRPL Petrol Bunk, Kathihosahalli, at that time the driver of offending Mahindra tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-43-T-2372- 2373, drove the same with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased from the front side. Due to the said impact, the deceased has suffered fatal injuries and died on the spot. Further it is contended that, earlier to the accident the deceased was working as a driver and was earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. He was contributing his entire earnings to his family. Due to untimely death of a sole bread earner, the petitioners are struggling for their livelihood.
11. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.2 has got examined himself as P.W.1 by filing examination-in-chief affidavit, wherein he has reiterated the entire averments made in the petition. Further, in support of their oral 11 MVC No.4358/2024 evidence, the petitioners have got marked total 18 documents as Ex.P.1 to 18. Out of the said documents, Ex.P.1 is true copy of F.I.R., Ex.P.2 is true copy of first information statement, Ex.P.3 is true copy of charge-sheet, Ex.P.4 is true copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P.5 is true copy of Motor Vehicles Accident report, Ex.P.6 is true copy of post- mortem report, Ex.P.7 is true copy of inquest, Ex.P.8 and 9 are notarized copy of Aadhar cards of petitioners No.1 and 2, Ex.P.10 and 11 are notarized copy of election ID cards of petitioners No.1 and 2, Ex.P.12 is notarized copy of ration card, Ex.P.13 is notarized copy of driving licence of deceased, Ex.P.14 is notarized copy of PAN card of deceased, Ex.P.15 is death certificate, Ex.P.16 is study certificate of deceased, Ex.P.17 is notarized copy of GST certificate for the year 2023 and Ex.P.18 is notarized copy of Aadhar card of P.W.2.
12. On meticulously going through the police documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 7, prima-facia it reveals that, the 12 MVC No.4358/2024 accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending tractor bearing No.KA-43-T-2372-2373 and dashing the same to the motorcycle of the deceased from opposite direction. Due to said impact the deceased Ramakrishna has sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to said injuries on the spot. The investigation officer in his final report/charge-sheet, which is marked as Ex.P.3, has clearly stated that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending tractor bearing No.KA-43-T-2372- 2373.
13. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that, in the present case, the date, time and place of accident, the issuance of insurance policy by the respondent No.1 in respect of offending tractor bearing No.KA-43-T-2372-2373 and its validity as on the date of accident, are not in dispute. But, the respondent No.1 & 2 have specifically denied the above averred facts and circumstances of the accident. Further, 13 MVC No.4358/2024 they has taken specific defence that, the alleged accident has taken place solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased/rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA- 53-HK-2706 and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-43-T-2372-2373. The respondent No.1 insurance company has further contended that, at the time of alleged accident the insured tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-43-T-2372-2373 was being driven by the son of respondent No.2 namely Manoj and not by the alleged driver Chandrashekhar Achar. As the said Manoj was minor as on the date of accident and he was not holding driving licence to drive the said vehicle, the alleged driver Chandrashekharachar was implanted in place of Manoj, in collusion with the respondent No.2 and police authorities. But, the respondent No.1 & 2 has failed to establish the above contentions. Except the self serving statements of R.W.1 to R.W.4, who are none other than the respondent No.2, the accused/driver of the offending vehicle, the 14 MVC No.4358/2024 representative/Legal Manager of respondent No.1 insurance company and the investigator of respondent No.1 insurance company, there is no other oral or document evidence placed on record by the respondents to establish that, the alleged accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased/rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-53-HK-2706 himself and at the time of alleged accident the offending tractor bearing Reg. No.KA- 43-T-2372-2373 was being driven by the son of respondent No.2 namely Manoj and not by the accused Chandrashekharachar. Further, it is pertinent to note that, though the R.W.4 has clearly stated in his cross-examination that, he has submitted his investigation report to the respondent No.1 insurance company, the said investigation report is not produced by the respondent No.1 in the present case. Further, there are material contradictions in the evidence of R.W.3 & R.W.4, which creates doubt on the veracity of their evidence. As per R.W.3, their 15 MVC No.4358/2024 investigator/R.W.4 has enquired and recorded the statement of accused Chandrashekarachar, wherein it is revealed that, the said Chandrashekarachar has been implanted in place of the son of respondent No.2. Whereas, R.W.4 has deposed in his evidence that, on 22-08-2024 at about 6:30 p.m., he met one Hanumanthachar and recorded his statement and except said person he has not recorded the statement of any other person. Further it is pertinent to note that, admittedly the respondent No.1 insurance company has not taken any legal action against alleged false implication of the driver of offending vehicle. It seems very strange to note that, even after coming to know that, the accused Chandrashekarachar has been falsely implicated as a driver of offending tractor and trailer in place of the son of respondent No.2, the respondent No.1 insurance company has not taken any legal action against the concerned persons. Further, there is no document placed on record to show that, the R.W.4 is working as an investigator in the said 16 MVC No.4358/2024 company and he was entrusted with the investigation work of accident in question by his company. Therefore, in such circumstances and for the above stated reasons and in the absence of cogent and corroborative evidence, this Court declines to believe the evidence of R.W.3 & R.W.4 and hold that the respondents have failed to establish the above alleged contentions taken in their defence. On the other hand, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners clearly establishes that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending tractor bearing No.KA-43-T-2372-2373 and dashing the same to the motorcycle of the deceased Ramakrishna from opposite direction. Though, the learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 have cross-examined P.W.1 in length, nothing worth has been brought out from her mouth, which creates doubt on the veracity of her evidence or which establishes that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the 17 MVC No.4358/2024 deceased/rider of the motorcycle or there was any contributory negligence on his part in the cause of accident.
14. Further, the Ex.P.4 spot mahazar also clearly speaks that, the said accident has taken place on the left side of 35 feet wide NH-648 Doddaballapura-Dabaspete road, near MRPL Petrol Bunk, Kattihosahalli, Bengaluru Rural, in between the offending tractor bearing No.KA-43-T-2372- 2373 and oncoming motorcycle bearing No.KA-53-HK-2706 of the deceased. Further, as per the Motor Vehicle Accident Report, which is marked as Ex.P.5, the accident is not caused due to any mechanical defects in the vehicles involved in the accident. When the accident has not taken place due to any mechanical defects in the vehicles involved in the accident and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased/rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-53-HK- 2706, then in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it can be presumed that, the said accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of 18 MVC No.4358/2024 offending vehicle. Further, the investigation officer in his Ex.P.3 final report/charge-sheet has clearly stated that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-43-T- 2372-2373 and the deceased has succumbed to fatal injuries sustained in the said accident. Admittedly, the said final report/charge-sheet has not been challenged by the driver or the owner of offending vehicle. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the final report filed by the investigation officer and other police records, with regard to date, time and place of accident, involvement of the offending tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-43-T-2372-2373 in the said accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle and injuries caused to deceased Ramakrishna in the said accident and the cause of his death.
15. Further, the Ex.P.6 Post-mortem report, clearly speaks that, the deceased Ramakrishna has died due to shock on account of head injury leading to cardio vascular arrest, 19 MVC No.4358/2024 sustained in the road traffic accident. There is absolutely no contrary or rebuttal evidence on record to disbelieve the said medical records of the deceased. In such circumstances and in the light of above observations, it can safely be held that, the respondents have failed to rebut the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners, regarding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-43-T-2372-2373, injuries caused to deceased Ramakrishna in the said accident and cause of his death.
16. Further, it is well settled principle of law that, in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as required to be done in a criminal trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parameshwari V/s Amir Chand and others, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 635, has clearly held that, "in a road accident claim cases the strict principle of proof as in a criminal case are not required."
20 MVC No.4358/2024
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bimla Devi and others V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 513, has clearly held that, "in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are merely required to establish their case on touch stone of preponderance of probability and the standard of proof on beyond reasonable doubt could not be applied."
18. Therefore, in the light of observations made in the above cited decisions and for the above stated reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioners have successfully proved through cogent and corroborative evidence that, the deceased Ramakrishna has succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, occurred on 20-05-2024 at about 5:15 p.m., on NH-648 Doddaballapura- Dabaspete road, near MRPL Petrol Bunk, Kattihosahalli, Bengaluru Rural, due to the rash and negligent driving of 21 MVC No.4358/2024 the driver of the tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-43-T-2372-2373. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in Affirmative.
19. Issue No.2: While answering the above issue, for the reasons stated therein, this Court has already held that, the petitioners have successfully proved through cogent and corroborative evidence that, the accident is caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending tractor bearing No.KA-43-T-2372-2373 and deceased Ramakrishna has sustained grievous injuries in the said accident and has succumbed to said injuries. Now the petitioners are required to establish that, they are the legal representatives of the deceased. In this regard, they have produced their respective Aadhar cards and Election Identity cards, Ration card, Driving licence and PAN card of the deceased, Death certificate and Study certificate of deceased, which are marked as Ex.P.8 to 16. The said documents clearly goes to show that, the petitioners No.1 is the mother and petitioner No.2 is the father of deceased Ramakrishna. On the other 22 MVC No.4358/2024 hand, the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased Ramakrishna is not specifically denied by the respondent No.1 in the case and even there is no rebuttal evidence placed on record by the respondent No.1 with respect to same. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the above documents produced by the petitioners and hold that, the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased Ramakrishna.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of National Insurance Co. V/s Birender, reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356, has clearly held that, "The legal representatives of the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166(1). The major married son who is also earning and not fully dependant on the deceased, would be still covered by the expression "legal representative" of the deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera (supra) had expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the concerned legal representative. Notably, the 23 MVC No.4358/2024 expression "legal representative" has not been defined in the Act.
The Tribunal has a duty to make an award, determine the amount of compensation which is just and proper and specify the person or persons to whom such compensation would be paid. The latter part relates to the entitlement of compensation by a person who claims for the same.
It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only."
21. According to the ratio laid down in above decision, the legal representatives though not fully dependent on the deceased are entitled to claim compensation under all the heads i.e., under both conventional and non-conventional heads. In order to determine the compensation, the age, avocation, income, dependency, future prospects of the 24 MVC No.4358/2024 deceased and other conventional heads are to be ascertained.
22. The compensation towards loss of dependency: The oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners clearly establishes that, they are legal representatives of the deceased Ramakrishna and they were depending on him. The dependency does not only mean financial dependency. Even if the dependency is a relevant criterion to claim compensation for loss of dependency, it does not mean financial dependency is the 'ark of the covenant'. Dependency includes gratuitous service dependency, physical dependency, emotional dependency and psychological dependency. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that, all the petitioners are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of dependency. In order to calculate the loss of dependency, the first step is to determine the age and income of the deceased. 25 MVC No.4358/2024
23. Age and income of the deceased: The petitioners have averred that, the age of deceased as on the date of accident was 31 years. To substantiate the same, the petitioners have produced the driving licence and PAN card of the deceased Ramakrishna, which are marked as Ex.P.13 and 14, wherein the date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 14-02-1992. The accident has taken place on 20-05-2024. This clearly goes to show that, as on the date of accident the age of the deceased was about 32 years. The petitioners have stated that, as on the date of accident the deceased was hale and healthy and he was working as driver in Chayaputra Transport Company, Bengaluru and was earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. To substantiate the same, the petitioners have produced driving licence and GST certificate for the year 2023, which are marked as Ex.P.13 and 17. Further, they have also examined the authorised person/owner of Chayaputra Transport Company, Bengaluru, as P.W.2. The P.W.2 has clearly 26 MVC No.4358/2024 deposed in his evidence that, the deceased Ramakrishna was working as driver in their company for the past 6 years on weekly payment of Rs.7,500/-, aggregating total salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. But, he has not produced any documents to show that he was paying Rs.30,000/- per month to the deceased. Even the petitioners have not produced any document to show that, their deceased son Ramakrishna was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Therefore in such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that, the petitioners have failed to prove the avocation and income of the deceased, as on the date of accident. Hence, there is no other option before this Court, except to consider the notional income as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
24. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the cases of, G. T. Basavaraj V/s Niranjan and another, in MFA No.7781/2016, judgment dated 11-08-2022, Ramanna and another V/s Y. B. Mahesh and another in MFA 27 MVC No.4358/2024 No.140/2017, judgment dated 16-01-2020 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd., V/s Anusaya and others in MFA No.101195/2014, judgment dated 05-01-2023, has clearly held that, "when the income of the deceased is not proved, then the notional income as per the guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is to be adopted as the income of the deceased."
25. Admittedly the accident took place in the year 2024. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased as per the guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is to be treated as Rs.16,500/- per month. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased in the present case is held as Rs.1,98,000/-.
26. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the legal heirs of deceased are also entitled for future 28 MVC No.4358/2024 prospects of the deceased, though he was not a permanent employee as on the date of death. Since the deceased was aged about 32 years and he was not a permanent employee, the future prospects would be 40% of his income, which comes to Rs.79,200/- per annum. Therefore, the future prospects of the deceased is held as Rs.79,200/- per annum. If this income is added to the notional income, then it comes to Rs.2,77,200/- per annum. Further, the annual income of the deceased comes within the exemption limits as per Income Tax Act.
27. The deduction of personal expenses and calculating the multiplier: The family of the deceased consist of two persons i.e., petitioners No.1 and 2. The total number of the dependents of the deceased are two and admittedly the deceased has died bachelor. Therefore, deduction towards the personal expenses of deceased is taken as 50% of the total income, which comes to Rs.1,38,600/-. After deducting 50% out of total income, 29 MVC No.4358/2024 towards the personal expenses of deceased, the annual income of the deceased is held as Rs.1,38,600/-.
28. As on the date of death, the age of the deceased was 32 years. As per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others V/s Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 S.C., the appropriate multiplier in the present case is taken as 16. Accordingly, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency is held as Rs.1,38,600/- x 16 = Rs.22,17,600/-.
29. Compensation under conventional heads: In the present case, admittedly the petitioners No.1 and 2 are parents of deceased Ramakrishna. Hence, the petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled for compensation under the head of filial consortium. As per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 30 MVC No.4358/2024 SCC 680, the compensation under the following conventional heads is awarded:
a) Loss of estate - Rs. 15,000/-
b) Loss of consortium - Rs. 40,000/-
c) Funeral expenses - Rs. 15,000/-
30. The compensation under above heads has to be enhanced 10% for every 3 years. Seven years have been lapsed from the date of the judgment. Therefore, the compensation under the above conventional heads is enhanced by 20%, the loss of estate comes to Rs.18,000/-, the loss of filial consortium comes to Rs.48,000/- each to petitioners No.1 and 2 and funeral expenses comes to Rs.18,000/-.
31. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for compensation under different heads as follows:
Sl. Head of
Amount/Rs
No. Compensation
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 22,17,600-00
31 MVC No.4358/2024
2. Loss of filial consortium Rs. 96,000-00
3. Loss of estate Rs. 18,000-00
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000-00
Total Rs. 23,49,600-00
Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.23,49,600/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petition till its realization.
32. Liability: Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending tractor bearing No.KA-43-T-2372- 2373. Further, as per driving licence, which is marked as Ex.R.3, the driver of offending vehicle by name Chandrashekar Char S/o Hanuma Char was holding valid and effective driving licence bearing No.KA4320090000034 to drive the said vehicle and it was valid till 05-06-2028. Further, as per Ex.R.5 insurance policy issued by the respondent No.1 bearing No.P0025300004/4107/100025, in 32 MVC No.4358/2024 respect of offending tractor, was valid from 04-04-2024 to 03-04-2025. As such, the insurance policy issued by the respondent No.1 in respect of offending vehicle was valid as on the date of accident i.e. 20-05-2024. There is no evidence on record to show that, there is breach of any terms and conditions of the insurance policy issued by the respondent No.1. Further, the evidence placed on record by the petitioners clearly establishes that, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending tractor bearing No.KA-43-T-2372-2373, the accident has occurred and the deceased Ramakrishna has succumbed to grievous injuries sustained in the said accident. In such circumstances, the respondent No.2 being the owner of offending vehicle is vicariously liable to compensate for the damage caused by the said vehicle. The respondent No.1 being the insurer of the said vehicle has to indemnify the respondent No.2. Therefore, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. 33 MVC No.4358/2024 However, the primary liability is on the respondent No.1 to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, for the above stated reasons, holding that, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.23,49,600/- from the respondent No.1, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 in Partly Affirmative.
33. Issue No.3: In view of the above findings, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.23,49,600/- (Rupees twenty three lakh forty nine thousand and six hundred only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation.
34 MVC No.4358/2024 The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the above compensation amount to the petitioners. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fastened on respondent No.1 - Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the said amount within two months from the date of this order.
The above compensation amount is apportioned as follows:
Petitioner No.1 - Mother - 50% Petitioner No.2 - Father - 50% Out of total compensation amount awarded in favour of petitioners No.1 and 2, 40% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in their names as fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for the period of three years with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining 60% amount with proportionate interest shall be released 35 MVC No.4358/2024 in their favour, through e-payment on proper identification and verification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced in the open Court this the 1 st day of April, 2026) (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners P.W.1: Narayanappa S/o Late Byrappa @ Beerappa P.W.2: Babu S/o Soundar Raj Documents marked on behalf of petitioners Ex.P.1: True copy of F.I.R.
Ex.P.2: True copy of First Information Statement
Ex.P.3: True copy of Charge-sheet
Ex.P.4: True copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.5: True copy of M.V.A. Report
Ex.P.6: True copy of Post-mortem Report
Ex.P.7: True copy of Inquest
Ex.P.8 & 9: Notarized copy of Aadhar Cards of
petitioners No.1 and 2
36 MVC No.4358/2024
Ex.P.10 & Notarized copy of Election Identity Cards of
11: petitioners No.1 and 2
Ex.P.12: Notarized copy of Ration Card
Ex.P.13: Notarized copy of Driving Licence of
deceased
Ex.P.14: Notarized copy of PAN Card of deceased
Ex.P.15: Death Certificate
Ex.P.16: Study Certificate of deceased
Ex.P.17: Notarized copy of GST Certificate for the
year 2023
Ex.P.18: Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of P.W.2
Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents R.W.1: Chikmuthrayappa S/o Late Gangamuthaiah R.W.2: Chandrashekar Achar S/o Hanumachar R.W.3: S. Naresh Babu S/o Siddappa R.W.4: Chethan Kumar B.K. S/o Krishnappa Documents marked on behalf of respondents Ex.R.1: Notarized copy of RC of vehicle bearing No.KA-43-T-2372 Ex.R.2: Notarized copy of RC of vehicle bearing No.KA-43-T-2373 Ex.R.3: Notarized copy of Driving Licence of Chandrashekar Ex.R.4: Authorization Letter Ex.R.5: True copy of Insurance Policy Ex.R.6: C.D. (total 3) Ex.R.7: Forensic Audio/Video Authentication Report along with certificate U/Sec.63(4) of BSA Act (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.