Bangalore District Court
Yashodamma vs Magma Hdi Gen Ins Co Ltd on 4 March, 2026
KABC020292612024
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.3910/2024
Dated this 4th day of March, 2026
Petitioners: 1. Yashodamma W/o Late Gangaraju,
Aged about 45 years,
2. Jagadisha S/o Late Gangaraju,
Aged about 20 years,
3. Shree Kantha S/o Late Gangaraju,
Aged about 18 years,
4. Sudeep B.G. S/o Late Gangaraju,
Aged about 16 years,
5. Siddamma W/o Late G. Narasimhaiah,
Aged about 74 years,
All are residing at No.73A,
Beeramangala Village, Bisalahalli,
Gowribidanuru Taluk,
Chikkaballapura District - 561 211.
2 MVC No.3910/2024
(Petitioner No.4 being minor is
represented by mother and natural
guardian Yashodamma)
(Sri V. Somashekar, Advocate)
V/s
Respondents: 1. Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
The Manager,
No.36, H.M. Astraid, J.C. Road,
Minerva Circle, Colony, Journalist,
Kalasipalya, Bengaluru - 560 002.
(Insurer of Tractor bearing
No.KA-40-TA-1051)
(Sri Gururaj Salur, Advocate)
2. Rathnamma W/o Narasimha Murthy,
Aged major,
No.25, Bisalahalli Village,
Manchenahalli Hobli, Gowribidanur
Taluk, Chikkaballapura District-561211.
(RC owner of Tractor bearing
No.KA-40-TA-1051)
(Sri Balarama Keshava D.N., Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- 3 MVC No.3910/2024 from the respondents, on account of death of Gangaraju, who is husband of petitioner No.1, father of petitioners No.2 to 4 and son of petitioner No.5, in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 16-04-2024, at about 10.45 p.m., the deceased Gangaraju was riding the motorcycle bearing No.KA-40-EJ- 1443 on the left side of the road, carefully, cautiously, by observing all the traffic rules, near Bisalahalli Village, Gowribidanuru Taluk, Chikkaballapura District. At that time, the driver of the tractor bearing No.KA-40-TA-1051 drove the same with high speed, in rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life, without observing any traffic rules and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to said impact, the deceased has fell down and sustained grievous injuries on vital parts of the body. Immediately after the accident, he was taken to General Hospital, Gowribidanur, wherein he took first aid treatment and then he was shifted to Chikkaballapur Institute of Medical Science and Teaching 4 MVC No.3910/2024 Hospital and then Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru and then Confido Multi Speciality Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as an in-patient and then he was shifted to Kshema Multispeciality Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as an in-patient. During the course of treatment in the said hospital, on 30-04-2024 he succumbed to said injuries. Earlier to the accident the deceased was working as agriculturist and milk vendor and was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- 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 Manchenalli Police have registered the case against the driver of the said tractor for the offences punishable under Section 279, 338 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 5 MVC No.3910/2024 allow the petition and award compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the respondents No.1 and 2 have appeared through their counsel. The respondent No.1 has filed its written statement. Whereas, the respondent No.2 did not choose to file her written statement.
4. The respondent No.1 in its written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of tractor bearing No.KA-40-TA-1051 and its liability, subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It has denied the issuance of insurance policy in respect of unregistered water tanker attached to the tractor. Further it is contended that, as on the date of alleged accident, the driver of the tractor bearing No.KA-40-TA-1051 was not holding valid and effective driving licence. The owner of the said vehicle has allowed the driver 6 MVC No.3910/2024 to drove the same knowing fully well that, he was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle and the said tractor was not having valid permit and fitness certificate to ply on the public place. Hence, it is clear violation of policy terms and conditions of the insurance policy and also the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. As such it is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and the petition is liable to be dismissed. It seeks protection under Section 147 and 150 of Motor Vehicles Act. It has denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased. Further it is contended that, the vehicle in question i.e. tractor bearing No.KA-40-TA-1051 is not at all involved in the alleged accident, the same has been implicated in order to get wrongful gain and to make wrongful loss to the respondent No.1, the entire police records are manipulated by showing the registration number of tractor bearing No.KA-40-TA-1051 and seasoned professional have joined hands with the petitioners and manipulated the charge-sheet. Further it is contended that, as 7 MVC No.3910/2024 per the police records the alleged accident was taken place on 16-04-2024, but the complaint is lodged on 18-04-2024 and in the F.I.R. there is no reference of Tractor bearing No.KA-40- TA-1051. The petitioners have created a false story and intentionally made a false complaint against the present vehicle. Further it is contended that, the deceased was under
the influence of alcohol and he was not in a position to drive a motorcycle at the time of alleged accident and he was not wearing safety head gear. Hence, it is a clear violation of Motor Vehicle Act. Further it is contended that, as per the police records on the alleged date of accident the petitioner has not sustained any severe nature of injuries and he has not taken any treatment towards accidental injuries. The deceased has not died due to accidental injuries. Hence, the present claim petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Further it is contended that, at the time of alleged accident the accused driver by name Thimma Reddy B.N., was not a driver of tractor bearing No.KA-40-TA-1051, he has been 8 MVC No.3910/2024 falsely implicated by colluding with the jurisdictional police to get wrongful gain from this respondent and playing fraud before this Hon'ble Court. Further it is contended that, the petition is bad for non-compliance of provision under Sections 134(C) and 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the owner of unregistered water tanker should also been arrayed as party to the proceedings, hence same is bad claim for the said doctrine. Further it is contended that, the compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. For the above denials and contentions, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, the deceased Gangaraju S/o Late G. Narasimaiah, has succumbed to the 9 MVC No.3910/2024 injuries sustained in road traffic accident, alleged to have been occurred on 16-04-2024, at about 10:45 p.m., near Bislahalli Village, Gowribidanuru Taluk, Chikkaballapura, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor bearing registration No.KA-
40-TA-1051 ?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?
6. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 has got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked total 35 documents as Ex.P.1 to 35. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 has examined the F.D.A., A.R.T.O. of Chikkaballapura, S.D.A., of Government Hospital, Gowribidanuru, its representative/Assistant Manager and its Investigator as R.W.1 to R.W.4 respectively and got marked 10 MVC No.3910/2024 total 8 documents as Ex.R.1 to 8. Whereas, the respondent No.2 has not adduced any evidence on her behalf.
7. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the entire material placed on record. The counsel for respondent No.1 has relied on the following decisions in support of his arguments:
i. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Belagavi V/s Smt. Reshama and others, reported in ILR 2021 KAR 146.
ii. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., V/s Gurunath and another, reported in 2009 ACJ 1356.
iii. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Pratik Kumar Tripathy and another, in MFA No.4090/2016 (MV-I), judgment dated 03-07-2025.
iv. The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Saalibai and another, in MFA No.200789/2018 (MV) 11 MVC No.3910/2024 C/w MFA No.201966/2018 (MV), judgment dated 19-05-2022.
8. 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
9. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioners that, on 16-04-2024, at about 10.45 p.m., when the deceased Gangaraju was riding the motorcycle bearing No.KA-40-EJ- 1443 on the left side of the road, carefully, by observing all the traffic rules, near Bisalahalli Village, Gowribidanuru Taluk, Chikkaballapura District, at that time, the driver of offending tractor bearing No.KA-40-TA-1051 drove the same with high speed, in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to said impact, the deceased has fell down and sustained grievous injuries 12 MVC No.3910/2024 on vital parts of the body and succumbed to said injuries on 30-04-2024 at Kshema Multispeciality Hospital, Bengaluru. Further it is contended that, earlier to the accident the deceased was working as an agriculturist and milk vendor and was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- 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.
10. In order to prove her case, the petitioner No.1 has got examined herself as P.W.1 by filing examination-in-chief affidavit, wherein she has reiterated the entire averments made in the petition. Further, in support of their oral evidence, the petitioners have got marked total 35 documents as Ex.P.1 to 35. Out of the said documents, Ex.P.1 is certified copy of F.I.R., Ex.P.2 is certified copy of first information statement, Ex.P.3 is certified copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P.4 is certified copy of seizure mahazar, Ex.P.5 is certified copy of sketch, Ex.P.6 is certified copy of notice 13 MVC No.3910/2024 under Section 133 of Motor Vehicle Act, Ex.P.7 is certified copy of reply to the notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act, Ex.P.8 is certified copy of Motor Vehicles Accident Report, Ex.P.9 is certified copy of death memo, Ex.P.10 is certified copy of inquest, Ex.P.11 is certified copy of post-mortem report, Ex.P.12 is certified copy of charge- sheet, Ex.P.13 is certified copy of statement of eye-witness, Ex.P.14 is certified copy of statement of witness, Ex.P.15 is certified copy of statement of witness, Ex.P.16 is notarized copy of registration certificate, Ex.P.17 is certified copy of insurance policy, Ex.P.18 is certified copy of driving licence of Thimmareddy, Ex.P.19 is discharge summary, Ex.P.20 is death certificate, Ex.P.21 is referral card, Ex.P.22 is OPD Book Ex.P.23 are medical bills, Ex.P.24 are prescriptions, Ex.P.25 are advance receipts, Ex.P.26 is lab report, Ex.P.27 is outpatient record, Ex.P.28 are x-rays, Ex.P.29 are MRI scan films and Ex.P.30 to 35 are notarized copy of Aadhar cards of petitioners No.1 to 5 and deceased.
14 MVC No.3910/2024
11. On meticulously going through the police documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 15, prima-facia it reveals that, the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-40-TA-1501 and dashing the same to the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to said impact the deceased Gangaraju has sustained grievous injuries all over the body and succumbed to said injuries on 30-04-2024 during the course of treatment in Kshema Multispeciality Hospital, Bengaluru. The investigation officer in his final report/charge-sheet, which is marked as Ex.P.12, has clearly stated that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-40-TA-1501 and dashing the same to the motorcycle of the deceased.
12. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that, in the present case, the date, time and place of accident, the issuance of 15 MVC No.3910/2024 insurance policy by the respondent No.1 in respect of tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-40-TA-1051 and its validity as on the date of accident, are not in dispute. Further, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners has remained undisputed by the owner of offending vehicle/Respondent No.2, as she did not choose to file her written statement and contest the case of the petitioners. But, the respondent No.1 has specifically denied the above averred facts and circumstances of the accident and has taken specific defence that, the tractor bearing No.KA-40-TA- 1051 was not at all involved in the alleged accident, the same has been falsely implicated in the alleged accident by the petitioners in collusion with the police, in order to get wrongful gain and to make wrongful loss to the respondent No.1. Further it is contended that, the entire police records have been manipulated by showing the registration number of tractor bearing No.KA-40-TA-1051 and the driver name as Thimma Reddy B.N., and filed false charge-sheet. Further it 16 MVC No.3910/2024 is alleged that, the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and he was not in a position to drive a motorcycle at the time of alleged accident and he was not wearing safety headgear. But, the respondent No.1 has failed to establish the said contentions. Except the self serving statements of R.W.3, who is the representative/Assistant Manager and R.W.4, who is said to be Investigator of respondent No.1 company, there is no other corroborative oral or documentary evidence placed on record by the respondents to show that, the offending vehicle was not at all involved in the accident and it has been falsely implicated in the alleged accident, the death of the deceased was not due to the injuries sustained in the said accident and he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident. The R.W.3 has clearly admitted in her cross-examination tha, as on the date of accident the insurance policy issued by respondent No.1 company in respect of offending Tractor bearing No.KA-40- TA-1051 was valid and in-force and the police have filed 17 MVC No.3910/2024 charge-sheet against the drive of our insured vehicle. Further he has admitted that, he has not personally enquired the accused Thimmareddy with respect to alleged fact that, he was not the driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident. But, they have conducted private investigation through their investigator with respect to same. This clearly goes to show that, the R.W.3 has no personal knowledge about the accident in question and on the basis of the investigation report submitted by the R.W.4, he is deposing with respect to same. It is pertinent to note that, though the R.W.4 has deposed in his examination-in- chief affidavit that, he is working as a investigator in the respondent No.1 insurance company, admittedly he has not produced any document to show that, as on the date of accident he was working working as a investigator in the respondent No.1 insurance company and the said company had deputed him to conduct investigation with respect to present accident. Further, except the Ex.R.8 report, the 18 MVC No.3910/2024 R.W.4 has neither produced any other document, nor produced any audio/video recording to show that, the accused/Thimmareddy has given the alleged statement before him, admitting that he was not driving the offending tractor at the time of accident and the same was driven by his driver. Further it is pertinent to note that, no where in the entire police records or in the post-mortem report of the deceased it is stated that, the deceased Gangaraju had consumed alcohol at the time of accident. Therefore, in such circumstances and for the above stated reasons, this Court is of the opinion that, the respondent No.1 has failed to establish the above contentions/defence taken in the instant case. On the other hand, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners clearly establishes that, the said accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending tractor bearing Reg. No.KA- 40-TA-1051 and dashing the same to the motorcycle of the deceased. Though, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 19 MVC No.3910/2024 has cross-examined P.W.1 in length, nothing worth has been elicited from her mouth which creates doubt on the veracity of her evidence or which goes to show that, the said accident has occurred due to negligence of the deceased or there was any contributory negligence on his part in the cause of accident.
13. Further, the Ex.P.3 spot mahazar and Ex.P.5 sketch also clearly speaks that, the said accident has taken place on the extreme left side of 30 feet wide NH-69 road, infront of Anjaneya statue, Bislahalli Village, Manchenahalli Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk, Chikkaballapura District, in between the offending tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-40-TA-1051 and motorcycle bearing No.KA-40-EJ-1443 of the deceased. Further it is pertinent to note, as per Ex.P.8 Motor Vehicle Accident report, the accident has not occurred due to any mechanical defects in the vehicles involved in the accident. When the accident has not taken place due to any 20 MVC No.3910/2024 mechanical defects in the vehicles involved in the accident and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased, 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 offending vehicle. Further, the investigation officer in his Ex.P.12 final report/charge-sheet has clearly stated that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-40-TA-1051 and dashing the said vehicle to the motorcycle of the deceased 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-40-TA-1051 in the 21 MVC No.3910/2024 said accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle and injuries caused to deceased Gangaraju in the said accident and the cause of his death.
14. No doubt, there is a delay of 2 days in lodging the complaint by the petitioner. But, the complainant has stated the reason for delay in lodging the complaint in his Ex.P.2 first information statement. He has clearly stated that, after accident he has taken the injured to General Hospital, Gowribidanur, wherein he was provided first aid treatment and then he was shifted to Chikkaballapur Institute of Medical Science and Teaching Hospital, from there to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru and then to Confido Multi Speciality Hospital, Bengaluru. After admitting the injured to Confido Multi Speciality Hospital, Bengaluru, he went to the Police Station to lodge the complaint. Hence, there is delay caused in lodging the complaint. It is settled proposition of law that, the delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt claimant's case in genuine cases. The Hon'ble 22 MVC No.3910/2024 Supreme Court, in the case of Ravi V/s Badrinarayan and others, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 693, has clearly held that, "the delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt claimant's case in genuine cases. In Indian conditions, it is not expected that a person would to rush to police station after accident. The treatment of victim is given priority over lodging FIR. The kith and kin of victim are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging FIR. Hence, delay in lodging FIR not a ground to dismiss claim petition."
15. There is no contrary or rebuttal evidence on record to disbelieve the reason for delay in lodging the complaint, stated in Ex.P.2 first information statement. Therefore, in such circumstances and in the light of ratio laid down in the above cited decision and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that, the delay in lodging the complaint is properly explained by the petitioner with cogent and satisfactory reasons. 23 MVC No.3910/2024
16. Further, the Ex.P.11 Post-mortem report, clearly speaks that, the deceased Gangaraju has died due to vertebra spinal injury sustained due to blunt force trauma as a result of road traffic accident. There is absolutely no rebuttal evidence placed on record by the respondents to show that, the documents produced by the petitioners are false. 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 offending tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-40-TA-1051 and cause of death of deceased Gangaraju.
17. 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 24 MVC No.3910/2024 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."
18. 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."
19. 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 Gangaraju has succumbed to 25 MVC No.3910/2024 the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, occurred on 16-04-2024 at about 10:45 p.m., on NH-69 road, infront of Anjaneya statue, Bislahalli Village, Manchenahalli Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk, Chikkaballapura District, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-40-TA-1051. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in Affirmative.
20. 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 Reg. No.KA-40-TA-1051 and deceased Gangaraju 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 Aadhar card of deceased 26 MVC No.3910/2024 Gangaraju, which are marked as Ex.P.30 to 35. The said documents clearly goes to show that, the petitioner No.1 is wife, petitioners No.2 to 4 are sons and petitioner No.5 is mother of deceased Gangaraju. On the other hand, the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased Gangaraju is not specifically denied by the respondent No.1 in the case and even there is no contrary or rebuttal evidence placed on record 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 deceased Gangaraju.
21. 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 27 MVC No.3910/2024 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 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."
22. 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 28 MVC No.3910/2024 heads. In order to determine the compensation, the age, avocation, income, dependency, future prospects of the deceased and other conventional heads are to be ascertained.
23. The compensation towards loss of dependency: The oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners clearly establishes that, the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased and they were depending on the deceased. 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 29 MVC No.3910/2024 order to calculate the loss of dependency, the first step is to determine the age and income of the deceased.
24. Age and income of the deceased: The petitioners have averred that, the age of deceased as on the date of accident was 42 years. To substantiate this point, the petitioners have produced the Aadhar card of deceased Gangaraju, which is marked as Ex.P.35, wherein the date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 01-01-1982. Admittedly, the accident has occurred on 16-04-2024. This clearly goes to show that, as on the date of accident the age of the deceased was 42 years. It is averred in the petition that, as on the date of accident the deceased was hale and healthy and he was working as an agriculturist and milk vendor and was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. But, the petitioners have not produced any document to prove the avocation and income of the deceased. In such circumstances, there is no other option before this Court, 30 MVC No.3910/2024 except to consider the notional income as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
25. 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 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."
26. 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. 31 MVC No.3910/2024 Therefore, the annual income of the deceased in the present case is held as Rs.1,98,000/-.
27. 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 prospects of the deceased, though he was not a permanent employee as on the date of death. Since the deceased was aged about 42 years and was not a permanent employee, the future prospects would be 25% of his income, which comes to Rs.49,500/-. Therefore, the future prospects of the deceased is held as Rs.49,500/-. If this income is added to the notional income, then it comes to Rs.2,47,500/-. Further, the annual income of the deceased comes within the exemption limits as per Income Tax Act.
28. The deduction of personal expenses and calculating the multiplier: The family of the deceased 32 MVC No.3910/2024 consist of 5 persons i.e., petitioners No.1 to 5. The total number of the dependents of the deceased are five. Therefore, deduction towards the personal expenses of deceased is taken as 1/4th of the total income, which comes to Rs.61,875/-. After deducting 1/4th out of total income, towards the personal expenses of deceased, the annual income of the deceased is held as Rs.1,85,625/-.
29. As on the date of death, the age of the deceased was 42 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 14. Accordingly, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency is held as Rs.1,85,625/- x 14 = Rs.25,98,750/-.
30. Compensation under conventional heads: In the present case, admittedly the petitioner No.1 is wife, 33 MVC No.3910/2024 petitioners No.2 to 4 are the children and petitioner No.5 is mother of deceased Gangaraju. Hence, the petitioners No.1 to 5 are entitled for compensation under the head of spousal, parental and 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 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/- each
c) Funeral expenses - Rs. 15,000/-
31. 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 spousal, parental and filial consortium comes to 34 MVC No.3910/2024 Rs.48,000/- each to petitioners No.1 to 5 and funeral expenses comes to Rs.18,000/-.
32. Medical expenses: The petitioners have deposed that, they have expended huge amount towards medical treatment and other charges of the deceased. In order to prove the same, they have produced 63 medical bills, as per Ex.P.23. The said bills have been examined carefully and found that the petitioners have spent total amount of Rs.10,59,940/- towards medical expenses of the deceased. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for Rs.10,59,940/- under the head of medical expenses.
33. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for compensation under different heads as follows :
Sl. Head of
Amount/Rs
No. Compensation
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 25,98,750-00
2. Loss of spousal, parental Rs. 2,40,000-00
and filial consortium
3. Loss of estate Rs. 18,000-00
35 MVC No.3910/2024
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000-00
5. Medical expenses Rs. 10,59,940-00
Total Rs. 39,34,690-00
Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation of Rs.39,34,690/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petition till its realization.
34. 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-40-TA-1051.
As per Ex.P.17 insurance policy bearing No.P0024300050/4107/104467, issued by the respondent No.1, in favour of respondent No.2, in respect of offending tractor bearing No.KA-40-TA-1051 was valid from 01-01-2024 to 31-12-2024. As such, the said policy was valid as on the date of accident i.e. 16-04-2024. As per Ex.P.18 driving licence, the driver of the offending vehicle by name Thimma Reddy B.N. S/o Narasimha Murthy was holding valid and 36 MVC No.3910/2024 effective driving licence bearing No.KA4020070002172 to drive the said vehicle and it was valid till 08-12-2026. 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-40-TA-1051 the accident in question has taken place and the deceased Gangaraju has succumbed to grievous injuries sustained in the said accident. In such circumstances, the respondent No.2 being the owner of said vehicle is vicariously liable to compensate for the damage caused by the usage of said vehicle. The respondent No.1 being the insurer of the vehicle has to indemnify the respondent No.2.
35. But, the respondent No.1 has taken specific defence that, the tractor bearing No.KA-40-TA-1051 was registered for agricultural purpose and as such it was permitted to be used only for agriculture purposes. But, at the time of alleged accident, the said vehicle was being used for commercial purpose, for carrying water in the tanker 37 MVC No.3910/2024 attached to it. Thereby, the insured/respondent No.2 has committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy. As such the respondent No.1 is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.1.
36. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 vehemently argued that, as the insured tractor bearing No.KA-40-TA- 1051 was attached with an unregistered and uninsured water tanker and it was used for commercial purpose, for carrying water in the said tanker. Hence, the police have filed charge-sheet against the respondent No.2/owner of said tractor, for the offences punishable under Sec.192 & 196 of Motor Vehicles Act. As there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy, the respondent No.1 insurance company is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.1. Hence, the petition against the respondent No.1 insurance company is liable to be dismissed.
38 MVC No.3910/2024
37. On the other hand, the learned counsel for petitioners vehemently argued that, as on the date of accident the insurance policy issued by the respondent No.1 in respect of offending tractor bearing No.KA-40-TA-1051 was in force and the driver of the said vehicle was holding valid and effective driving licence. Further, the said vehicle was not used for any commercial purpose and there is no breach of any terms and conditions of the policy. The respondent No.1 in order to escape from the liability to pay compensation to the petitioners has taken false defence in the case. Further he has argued that, it is settled principle of law that, even if there is a fundamental breach of any condition recognised under Sec.149(2) of Motor vehicles Act, the insurance company is liable to pay the third party and recover the same from the insured. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for petitioners has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Akula Narayana V/s The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and another, in Civil 39 MVC No.3910/2024 Appeal No.013509/2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.8434/2023, dated 10-11-2025.
38. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for respondent No.1, as the insured tractor bearing No.KA-40- TA-1051 was attached with an unregistered and uninsured water tanker and it was used for carrying water in the said tanker, the police have filed charge-sheet against the respondent No.2/owner of said tractor, for the offences punishable under Sec.192 & 196 of Motor Vehicles Act. The respondent No.2 though has appeared in the case, has not produced any document to show that, the attached water tanker was registered, if not whether she has taken permission from the concerned R.T.O., to attach the same to her tractor bearing Reg.No.KA-40-TA-1051 for the purpose of carrying water. Further, there is nothing on record to show that, the respondent No.2 was carrying water for agriculture purpose. In such circumstances, there is no other option before this Court, except to draw adverse inference against 40 MVC No.3910/2024 the respondent No.2 and hold that, at the relevant point of time of accident the offending tractor bearing No.KA-40-TA- 1051 was being used by the respondent No.2 for non- agriculture purpose/commercial purpose. As such, she has committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, in such circumstances, the respondent No.2 cannot be permitted to take the benefit of his wrong and the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is entitled to raise a defence under Sec.149(2) of Motor Vehicles Act.
39. But, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its recent judgment in the case of Akula Narayana V/s The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and another, in Civil Appeal No.013509/2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.8434/2023, dated 10-11-2025, has upheld the principle of pay and recovery and has clearly held that, "Where the contract of insurance is not disputed, even on breach of insurance conditions, this Court had allowed recovery of compensation from the insurer by giving right to the 41 MVC No.3910/2024 insurer to recover the same from the vehicle owner. The pay and recover principle has been consistently followed even though it was doubted in a reference which remained unanswered. Taking a conspectus of case of various pronouncements, this Court recently in Rama Bai V/s Amit Minerals, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2067 again applied the said principle and while allowing the appeal of the claimant directed that, the insurance company shall satisfy the award and may recover from the insured. Following the aforesaid decisions, we deem it appropriate to allow the appeal by directing that the first respondent (i.e. the insurer) shall satisfy the award, though, however, it can recover the amount so paid from the insured (i.e. owner of the vehicle)".
40. Therefore, in the light of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited decision and for the above stated reasons, this Court is of the opinion that, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay 42 MVC No.3910/2024 the compensation to the petitioners. However, the primary liability is on the respondent No.1 to pay the compensation to the petitioners and later recover the same from the respondent No.2. Accordingly, it is held that, the respondent No.1 is liable to pay the above compensation of Rs.39,34,690/- to the petitioners, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petitions till its realization and later recover the same from the respondent No.2. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 in Partly Affirmative.
41. 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 to compensation of Rs.39,34,690/- (Rupees thirty nine lakh thirty four thousand six hundred and ninety only), with interest 43 MVC No.3910/2024 at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 & 2 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 and recover the same from the respondent No.2, in the very proceedings by filing an execution petition.
The above compensation amount is apportioned as follows:
Petitioner No.1 - Wife - 20% Petitioner No.2 - Son - 20% Petitioner No.3 - Son - 20% Petitioner No.4 - Son - 20% Petitioner No.5 - Mother - 20% Out of total compensation amount awarded in favour of petitioners No.1 to 44 MVC No.3910/2024 3 & 5, 30% 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 70% amount with proportionate interest shall be released in their favour, through e-payment on proper identification and verification..
The entire compensation amount awarded in favour of petitioner No.4, with proportionate interest shall be deposited in his name as fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till he attains the age of majority.
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 4 th day of March, 2026) (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.45 MVC No.3910/2024
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners P.W.1: Yashodamma W/o Late Gangaraju Documents marked on behalf of petitioners Ex.P.1: Certified copy of F.I.R.
Ex.P.2: Certified copy of First Information
Statement
Ex.P.3: Certified copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.4: Certified copy of Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.5: Certified copy of Sketch
Ex.P.6: Certified copy of Notice under Section 133
of Motor Vehicles Act
Ex.P.7: Certified copy of Reply to Notice under
Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act
Ex.P.8: Certified copy of M.V.A. Report
Ex.P.9: Certified copy of Death Memo
Ex.P.10: Certified copy of Inquest
Ex.P.11: Certified copy of Post-mortem Report
Ex.P.12: Certified copy of Charge-sheet
Ex.P.13: Certified copy of Statement of Eyewitness
Ex.P.14: Certified copy of Statement of Witness
Ex.P.15: Certified copy of Statement of Witness
Ex.P.16: Notarized copy of Registration Certificate
Ex.P.17: Certified copy of Insurance Policy
Ex.P.18: Notarized copy of Driving Licence of
46 MVC No.3910/2024
Thimmareddy
Ex.P.19: Discharge Summary
Ex.P.20: Death Certificate
Ex.P.21: Referral Card
Ex.P.22: OPD Book
Ex.P.23: Medical Bills (total 63)
Ex.P.24: Prescriptions (total 32)
Ex.P.25: Advance Receipts (total 3)
Ex.P.26: Lab Report
Ex.P.27: Outpatient Record
Ex.P.28: X-rays (total 5)
Ex.P.29: MRI Scan Films (total 3)
Ex.P.30 to Notarized copy of Aadhar Cards of
35: petitioners No.1 to 5 and deceased
Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents R.W.1: Meenakshi W/o Adarsh R.W.2: Radha Krishna S/o Dalappa R.W.3: S. Naresh Babu S/o Siddappa R.W.4: Chethan Kumar S/o Krishnappa Documents marked on behalf of respondents Ex.R.1: Authorization Letter Ex.R.2: B-Register Extract Ex.R.3: Authorization Letter Ex.R.4: True copy of MLC Register Extract 47 MVC No.3910/2024 Ex.R.5: Authorization Letter Ex.R.6: True copy of Insurance Policy Ex.R.7: Authorization Letter Ex.R.8: Investigation Report (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.