Bangalore District Court
Padma vs Mahadevswamy.S on 25 October, 2025
KABC020020192023
IN THE COURT OF XIX ADDL.JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
BENGALURU (SCCH-17)
PRESENT: SRI. KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM B.A.L., LL.M.,
XIX ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & ACJM,
BENGALURU.
Dated: This the 25th day of October, 2025
M.V.C.No. 402/2023
Petitioners 1. Smt. Padma
W/o Late Mahadeva Swamy,
Aged about 45 years,
2. Amrutha Vani M
D/o Late Mahadeva Swamy,
Aged about 25 years,
3. M. Aishwarya,
D/o Late Mahadeva Swamy,
Aged about 22 years,
4.Akhila M,
D/o Late mahadeva Swamy,
Aged about 20 years,
5. Smt. Lakshmamma,
W/o Late Puttaiah,
SCCH-17 2 MVC 402/2023
Aged about 73 years,
All are residents of # 114,
Police Quarters,
Jyothinagara,
Mysuru,
Karnataka - 560019.
Presently Residing at:
#454, 8th Cross,
Peenya 2nd Stage,
Shambhavi Nagar,
Bengaluru.
(By Smt. Asma Kauser, Advt., )
V/s
Respondents 1. Mahadevaswamy S
S/o Shivananjappa,
Major,
R/o #622/2,
Jantabadawanne,
Halanahalli,
Mysuru - 570028.
(Owner of Mini Goods Vehicle
bearing No. KA-55-A-1747)
(By Sri.H.J.Nandakumar, Advt., )
2. The Manager,
Raheja OBE General Insurance
SCCH-17 3 MVC 402/2023
Co. Ltd.,
HM Genewa House,
Unit No. 201, 2nd Floor,
No.14, Cunninggum Road,
Bengaluru - 560052.
Policy No. R0125667 # MM 172347
(Valid from 20.06.2022 to
19.06.2023)
(By Smt. Suma Sannegowda, Advt., )
JUDGMENT
This judgment is emerged consequent upon the petition filed by the petitioners U/S 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- on account of the death of Mahadevaswamy, in the road traffic accident.
2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows:
On 27.08.2022 at about 12.30 a.m., the deceased was proceeding in the Bajaj CT 110 bearing No.KA-55- EB-0127, on Chamappaji Road, near C.A.R. HQ, Nazarbad Mohalla, Mysuru City, at that time the Mini Good vehicle bearing No. KA-55-A-1747 coming from SCCH-17 4 MVC 402/2023 C.A.R. side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased Mahadevaswamy, due to which the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
Immediately the injured was shifted to JSS hospital Mysuru, but the doctors declared as brought dead. Thereafter postmortem was conducted and handed over the body to the petitioners. The petitioners have spent total of Rs.3,00,000/- towards funeral and obsequies ceremonies.
Prior to the accident, deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 54 years and working as a A.R.S.I. (Armed Reserve Sub-Inspector) Police at Mysuru and earning Rs.60,385/ per month and contributing his entire income for the maintenance of his family. Due to the untimely death of deceased the petitioners have suffered mentally and financially.
The respondent No.1 & 2 are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly severally liable to pay SCCH-17 5 MVC 402/2023 the compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, prays to award compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- with interest to the petitioners.
3. After service of summons respondents appeared through their respective counsels and filed separate written Statements.
The 1st respondent-owner has denied all the averments of the petition. The respondent No.1 has admitted that he is the RC owner of the said offending vehicle and driver of the said vehicle at the time of accident. Further the accident was only due to the negligent act of the deceased himself who was riding his motor bike in a rash and negligent manner and thereby lost his control over the said vehicle and dashed against the first respondent vehicle. Further he has stated that his vehicle has been insured with the 2nd respondent insurance company and on the date of the alleged SCCH-17 6 MVC 402/2023 accident the said insurance was in force. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition against him.
Respondent No.2 - insurance company also denied all the averments of the petition by putting the burden on the petitioners to prove their case. The respondent No.2 admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of the Mini Good Vehicle bearing No.KA-55-A-1747 and the liability of this respondent, if any, is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Further contended that, there is no compliance of Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act. Further it has Further it has denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased and also by contending the non-existence of the driving licence to the driver of the offending vehicle and by claiming the violation of policy conditions the respondent No.2 - insurance company prays to dismiss the petition against it.
4. On the basis of the rival contentions, the following issues were framed by this court: SCCH-17 7 MVC 402/2023
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Mahadevaswamy died in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.08.2022 at about 12.30 a.m. on Chamappaji Road, near CAR HQ, Nazarbad, Mohalla, Mysore City, due to the rash and negligence driving of the Mini Goods vehicle bearing No.KA-
55-A-1747 by its rider?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal heirs and dependents of deceased?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
4. What order or award?
5. In order to prove the claim petition, the 1st petitioner is examined as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14.
On the other hand the respondent No.2 examined S.I. Mysore as RW.1 and got marked 4 documents at Ex.R1 to Ex.R4, respondent No.2 -insurance company examined its official as RW.2 and got marked 2 SCCH-17 8 MVC 402/2023 documents at Ex.R5 & Ex.R6 and further examined FDA, ARTO, Mysore East as RW3 and got marked 2 documents at Ex.R.7 and Ex.R.8. Further the respondent No.1 examined himself as RW4 and got marked 3 documents at Ex.R.9 to Ex.R.11.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the material evidence that is available on record. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 relied on the following judgments in support of their arguments:
1.Spl. Leave Petition No.22265-22266/2018 -
Deep Shikha & another V/s National Insurance Company Ltd. & others.
2. 2024 INSC 573- Meenakshi V/s The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.
3. SLP No.7805/2022 - The New India Assurance Company Limited V/s Anand Pal & others.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under.
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative,
Issue No.2 : In the partly affirmative,
Issue No.3 : In the affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per final orders
for the following.-
SCCH-17 9 MVC 402/2023
REASONS
ISSUE NO.1:
8. The petitioners to prove their claim have produced certified copies of FIR, complaint, Requisition, Intimation, spot mahazar, spot sketch, seizure mahazar, inquest report, IMV report, PM report, FSL report and head of charge sheet, which are marked under Ex.P.1 to
12.
9. As per the documents, Ex.P1 FIR is came to be registered on the basis of the complaint given by one Aishwarya M who was the daughter of deceased by alleging the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Mini Goods vehicle per Ex.P2. In the Ex.P2, they have alleged the rash and negligent driving by the driver of Goods vehicle bearing No.KA-55-A-1747. After the registration of FIR the IO conducted the spot mahazar and spot sketch as per Ex.P5 & 6. As per the spot sketch marked at Ex.P6 the accident spot is in the edge of the road. On perusal of the Ex.P.5 rough sketch the offending SCCH-17 10 MVC 402/2023 Goods vehicle bearing No.KA-55-A-1747 came to its extreme right side of the road and caused the accident. The contents of mahazar and rough sketch establishes the negligence of the driver of the Goods vehicle bearing No.KA-55-A-1747. If the driver of the Goods vehicle bearing No.KA-55-A-1747 was not negligent he was not going to the wrong side of the road and caused accident.
10. The Ex.P.7 is the seizure mahazar and the Ex.P.9 being the IMV report establishes the offending Goods vehicle bearing No.KA-55-A-1747 got damages in its right side and the motorcycle in which the deceased was proceeding got front side damages. This shows that the driver of Goods vehicle bearing No.KA-55-A-1747 came to right side portion of the road i.e., wrong side and caused the accident. Thereby the Ex.P.5 mahazar, P.6 sketch, P.7 seizure mahazar and P.9 IMV report prima- facie established the negligence of the driver of Goods vehicle bearing No.KA-55-A-1747.
SCCH-17 11 MVC 402/2023
11. The Ex.P12 charge sheet is also filed against the driver of Goods vehicle bearing No.KA-55-A-1747 wherein after the detailed investigation the IO came to the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of Goods vehicle bearing No.KA- 55-A-1747. The Ex.P8 inquest and Ex.P10 postmortem report and Ex,P11 FSL report establishes that the deceased Mahadevaswamy died due to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident.
12. According to the charge sheet, the driver of the Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-41-A-3287 driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and thereby caused the accident. The police have accordingly filed a charge sheet against the driver for offences punishable under Sections 279 & 304A of IPC and 134 r/w 187 of IMV Act.
13. At this juncture it is worth to refer to the decision reported in Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal SCCH-17 12 MVC 402/2023 Road Transport Corporation and others (2009) 13 SCC 530, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in petitions before Motor Accident Claims Tribunals strict proof of an accident caused by a vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants, they are merely required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
14. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Mallamma Vs. Balaji and Others ILR 2003 Kar 493 held that filing of the charge sheet against the driver is also a prima-facie case to hold that, the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for the accident and burden shifts on him to prove the contrary to the charge sheet. Thereby considering the corroboration from the charge sheet and the materials placed before this tribunal finds no reason to disbelieve the version of the petitioners. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative. SCCH-17 13 MVC 402/2023
ISSUE NO.2
15. As held herein above, the petitioners have proved that Mahadevaswamy died due to the injuries sustained in RTA, which is caused by the driver of Mini Goods vehicle bearing No.KA-55-A-1747.
16. As contended in the petition the petitioners are the wife,, major daughters and of the deceased. The respondents do not specifically deny the relationship of petitioners with deceased. The petitioners to prove their relationship with the deceased, have produced the notarized copies of Aadhar cards and voter ID of petitioner No.1 which are marked under Ex.P14.
17. As per these documents the petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2 to 4 are the daughters and petitioner No.5 is the mother of the deceased, but the respondents do not dispute the relationship of the petitioners with deceased. The respondents do not dispute the Aadhaar cards produced by the petitioners. SCCH-17 14 MVC 402/2023 The respondents not adduced any evidence to disprove the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased.
18. In the absence of contradictory evidence the evidence of the petitioners is to be accepted and it is considered that, petitioners are the wife, daughters and mother of the deceased.
19. At the time of cross-examination the PW1 answered that the petitioner No.2 is married. On the basis of the said answer the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 vehemently argues that the married daughter is not a dependent on the deceased and relied on the following judgment in support of their arguments:
20. In the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deep Shikha & another V/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. & others wherein it is held as follows:
13. Once a daughter is married, logical presumption is that she now has rights on her matrimonial household and is also financially supported by her husband or his family, unless proven SCCH-17 15 MVC 402/2023 otherwise. It is more than likely that her dependence on her natal family, including her mother has now ceased.
Sections 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 focus on the financial relationship between the deceased and the Claimant. A married daughter may be considered a legal representative, as per Manjuri Bera, but she will not be eligible for loss of dependency compensation unless it is proven by the daughter that she was financially dependent on the deceased. Thus, it is clear from the record that Appellant No. 1 has failed to prove that she was being financially supported by her mother post marriage and hence cannot be said to be a dependent of her mother, the deceased.
14. Therefore, it is our opinion the High Court correctly relied on Manjuri Bera while holding that Appellant No.1, as the legal representative of the deceased, will only be entitled to compensation envisaged in Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as liability under the same does not cease to exist in the absence of dependency.
Thereby in the above quoted judgment it is held that unless it is established by showing that the married daughter was financially dependent on her father the loss of dependency cannot be considered. By applying the SCCH-17 16 MVC 402/2023 precedent of the above quoted judgment to the present case on hand in this as admitted by the PW1, the petitioner No.2 is married and she is residing with her husband. No pleadings and evidence is available by showing that the petitioner No.2 being the married daughter was dependent financially on the deceased father. In the absence of such evidence it is considered as petitioner No.2 being the married daughter is not entitled for the compensation under the head of loss of dependency.
21. Further the PW1 also answered that after the death of Mahadevaswamy the petitioner No.4 has got the job under compensatory grounds as such even she is not entitled for compensation. Admittedly the petitioner No.4 has got compensatory job. Whether the said fact will disable the petitioner No.4 in claiming the compensation or not has to be looked into.
SCCH-17 17 MVC 402/2023
In AIR 2017 SC 2580 between National Insruance Company Limited Vs. V.Rekha Ben and others with National Insurance Co. Vs. Ramaraj Singh, Bhagawan Singh Zala & Others, it was observed that, "financial benefit of compassionate employment not liable to be deducted from compensation amount."
In ILR 1998 KAR. 2210 between Smt.Lalitha & Another Vs. Dashan Bhat Haribansh & Another, it was observed that, " wife is entitled to compensation because whatever salary she got after employment was in lieu of services rendered by her. While her husband was alive and earning she must have employed herself gainfully in household work."
In 2013 AIR SCW 3258 between Vimal Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore Dan and others, it was observed that, "Provident fund, pension and insurance received by the claimant does not come within the periphery of Act, to be termed as pecuniary advantage liable for deduction. SCCH-17 18 MVC 402/2023 Any amount received on such apportionment is not liable for deduction."
In ILR 2016 KAR 549 between Rajeshwari G. Bhuyar and others Vs. Sindhu Travels and Another, wherein it was held that, " Life insurance of the deceased is not deductable from the compensation computed under the M.V. Act. The insured contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which has no corelation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. The amount receivable as compensation under the M.V. Act is an account of the injury or death without making any contribution towards it, then how can the fruits of an amount received through contribution of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the M.V. Act. Further observed that, compensation payable under M.V. Act, is statutory while the amount receivable under the life insurance policy is contractual. Any amount SCCH-17 19 MVC 402/2023 received by the claimants towards provident fund, pension and life insurance on account of victim's death is not liable for deduction from out of the compensation computed under the M.V. Act.
By considering the same even though the petitioner No.4 got compensatory job, it will not make her disentitle in claiming the compensation under MV Act in view of death of her father in RTA.
By applying the above precedent the petitioner No.1, 3 to 5 are the dependents of the deceased. Accordingly, issue No.2 answered in the partly affirmative.
ISSUE No.3
22. As held herein above, the petitioners have proved that Mahadevaswamy died due to the injuries sustained in RTA, which is caused by the driver of the Mini Goods vehicle bearing No. KA-55-A-1747. SCCH-17 20 MVC 402/2023
23. Now the quantum of compensation is to be decided. The petitioners have produced Salary Slip of the deceased as per Ex.P13. In the said document, the date of birth of the deceased is shown as 05.10.1967. The accident took place on 27.08.2022. Hence, as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 54 years 10 months 23 days.
24. In the petition the petitioners pleaded that the deceased was working as ARSI (Armed Reserve Sub- Inspector Police) and getting salary of Rs.60,385/- p.m. and he was contributing the same to his family maintenance. To prove the said fact, the petitioners produced the Ex.P.13 salary certificate. As per the salary certificate for the month of August-2022 marked at Ex.P.13 the deceased used to get gross salary of Rs.60,385/- and net salary of Rs.35,404/-. In the gross salary of Rs.60,385/- Rs.200/- used to be deducted towards professional tax, Rs.500/- used to be given SCCH-17 21 MVC 402/2023 uniform maintenance allowance, Rs.600/- used to be given for conveyance allowance and Rs.40/- used to be given as special kit allowance. The said uniform allowance, conveyance allowance and special kit allowance was to be given for the deceased as he was working as Armed Reserve Sub- Inspector Police. As such the said amount has to be deducted in the gross salary.
Gross Salary Rs.60,385/- Professional tax, Rs.200/- Uniform maintenance allowance, Rs.500/- Conveyance allowance Rs.600/- special kit allowance Rs.40/-
After deducting Professional tax, Uniform Rs. 59,045/- maintenance allowance, Conveyance allowance and special kit allowance.
Thereby the actual salary need to be consider is Rs.59,045/-.
25. In the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA 5917/2018 connected with MFA SCCH-17 22 MVC 402/2023 No.7264/2018 dated 02-08-2021 between The Future General India Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Sri Dinabandhu Sahu and others wherein it is held as follows:
Accident occurred on 13.01.2016, the Salary certificate -Ex.P.25 for the month of December 2015 indicates gross salary of deceased at Rs.68,416/- and deduction of a sum of Rs.1,128/- towards income tax and Rs.200/- towards professional tax. However, if monthly income of deceased was Rs.68,416/-, annual income would be Rs.8,20,992/-. For the year 2015-2016 Rs.2,50,000/- was exempted income. Tax at Rs.10% on the income in excess of Rs.2,50,000/- upto to Rs.5,00,000/- was applicable and thereafter at 20% on the remainder. Total Gross Income Rs.8,20,992/-.
Total income not exceeding Nil
Rs.2,50,000/-
Total income exceeding 10% of the Rs.25,000/-
Rs.2,50,000/- but not amount
exceeding Rs.5,00,000/- exceeding
Rs.2,50,000/-
Total income exceeding 20% of the Rs.64,198/-
Rs.5,00,000/- but not amount
exceeding Rs.10,00,000/- exceeding
Rs.5,00,000/-
Total Tax Rs. 89,198/-
In addition, a sum of Rs.2,400/- has to be deducted towards professional tax. Thus, income for SCCH-17 23 MVC 402/2023 the purpose of calculation of 'loss of dependency' would be Rs.8,20,992 - 89,198 = Rs.7,29,394/- after deducting income tax and professional tax.
26. In the above quoted judgment it is held that the income tax and professional tax has to be deducted in the gross income of the deceased. As per the salary slip marked at Ex.P13 in the month of August 2022 the gross salary was Rs.60,385/-. In the said amount after deducting the other allowances as discussed in the above quoted table Rs.59,045/-is considered as monthly income of the deceased. As such the gross income of the deceased for the year will be Rs.59,045/- x 12 = Rs.7,08,540/-. The said Rs.7,08,540/- will be income of the deceased as established by the petitioners. By applying the above said precedent the income tax has to be deducted as the income of the deceased coming under the taxable income limits.
SCCH-17 24 MVC 402/2023
27. Accident occurred on 27.03.2022. . The annual income of the deceased was Rs.7,08,540/-. For the year 2022-23 Rs.2,50,000/- was exempted income. Tax at Rs.5% on the income in excess of Rs.2,50,000/- upto to Rs.5,00,000/- was applicable and thereafter at 20% on the Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- and at 30% on above Rs.10,00,000/- at 30%.
28. The total gross income of the deceased is Rs.7,08,540/-. The professional tax is already deducted in the gross salary.
Total income not exceeding Nil
Rs.2,50,000/-
Total income exceeding 5% of the Rs.12,500/-
Rs.2,50,001/- but not amount
exceeding Rs.5,00,000/- exceeding i.e.,
Rs.2,50,000/-
Total income exceeding 20% of the Rs.41,708/-
Rs.5,00,001/- but not amount
exceeding Rs.10,00,000/- exceeding
(Rs.7,08,540/- Minus Rs.5,00,000/-
Rs.5,00,000/- = i.e.,
2,08,540/- Rs.2,08,540/-
Total income exceeding 30% of the Not applicable
Rs.10,00,001/- amount
SCCH-17 25 MVC 402/2023
exceeding
Rs.15,00,001/-
Total Tax Rs. 54,208/-
Hence, in the net salary of Rs.7,08,540/- the total tax of Rs.54,208/- is deducted, then Rs.6,54,332/- will be the income of the deceased. Accordingly Rs.6,54,332/- will be the annual income to be considered in this case.
33. As per Sarala varma case the proper multiplier applicable to the age of deceased is 11. Since the deceased left his wife, two unmarried daughters and one mother as dependents at the time of death, it is considered that, there are four dependents of deceased, hence 1/4th is to be deducted towards his personal expenses, then the total loss of dependency would be Rs.53,98,239/- (Rs.6,54,332 X 11= Rs.71,97,652/- minus 1/4th(17,99,413/-) = Rs.53,98,239/-). SCCH-17 26 MVC 402/2023
34. In Civil Special leave petition (Civil No.25590/2014 dated 31.10.2016 (National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi & others), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "While determining the income, in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.."
35. In another reported decision in Civil Appeal Nos.19-20 of 2021 in between Kirti and Another , V/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., as follows; SCCH-17 27 MVC 402/2023
"When it comes to the second category of cases, relating to notional income for non-earning victims, it is my opinion that the above principle applies with equal vigor, particularly with respect to homemakers. Once notional income is determined, the effects of inflation would equally apply. Further, no one would ever say that the improvements in skills that come with experience do not take place in the domain of work within the household. It is worth nothing that, although not extensively discussed, this Court has been granting future prospects even in cases pertaining to notional income, as has been highlighted by my learned brother, Surya Kant, J., in his opinion (Hem Raj V. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2018) 15 SCC 654: Sunita Tokas V. New India Insurance Company Ltd., (2019) 20 SCC 688)". SCCH-17 28 MVC 402/2023
As per the above decisions 15% out of loss of dependency has to be granted towards future prospects which would Rs.8,09,736/-.
27. The Petitioners are the wife and three daughters and mother of the deceased. The petitioner No.1 being wife lost her companion husband, The petitioner Nos.2 to 4 being the daughters of the deceased and petitioner No.5 being the mother of the deceased lost their caring father and son. Therefore they are entitled to a sum of Rs.44,000/- each. (Rs.40,000/x 10% hike every three years from 2017 as per Pranay Sethi Case) under the head of loss of consortium.
28. Further I inclined to award a sum of Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses (this amount is calculated as per Pranaya Sethi case with enhanced rate at 10% after three years).
SCCH-17 29 MVC 402/2023
The petitioners are entitled for compensation under the following heads:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 53,98,239/-
2. Loss of future prospects Rs. 8,09,736/-
3. Loss of consortium Rs. 1,76,000/-
4. Loss of estate Rs. 16,500/-
5. Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/-
6. Transport of dead body Rs. 16,500/-
Total Rs. 64,33,475/-
29. Liability:- In the petition it is alleged that the respondent No.1& 2 are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle bearing No.KA-55-A-1747. The respondent No.2 in its written statement has admitted the issuance of policy to the offending vehicle. No other grounds are made out to show the violation of policy conditions by respondent No.1 owner. The respondent No.1 also appeared and examined himself as RW4 where he produced the copy of driving licence of the accused as Ex.R.10. As discussed above, the petitioners successfully proved the negligence on the part of the driver of SCCH-17 30 MVC 402/2023 offending vehicle bearing No.KA-55-A-1747. The respondent No.2 failed to establish the contributory negligence or violation of policy conditions. Thereby, the respondent No.1 & 2 being the owner and insurer are liable to pay the compensation along with the interest.
Hence, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners and the respondent No.2 insurance company shall indemnify the compensation on behalf of the respondent No.1. The petitioners are entitled for the interest at 6% per annum. Accordingly, this issue answered in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.4:-
30. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.SCCH-17 31 MVC 402/2023
The petitioners are entitled for total compensation amount of Rs.64,33,475/- (Rupees sixty four lakhs thirty three thousand four hundred seventy five only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.,. from the date of petition till the realization from respondents.
The respondent No.2 - insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within 60 days from the date of this order.
The petitioner No.2 being the married daughter entitle for compensation amount of Rs.60,500/- which is awarded under the head of loss of consortium and loss of estate.
Out of total remaining compensation awarded in this judgment the petitioner No.1, 3 to 5 are entitled for the compensation at the ratio of 50:20:20:10.
Out of the compensation amount awarded to the Petitioner No.1, 3 and 4 50% shall be released in favour petitioner No.1, 3 and 4 on the proper identification and remaining 50% shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Scheduled Bank, for a period of three years, in the name of petitioner No.1, 3 and
4. By considering the quantum of amount awarded to the petitioner No.2 and 5, the office is directed to release the entire compensation amount to petitioner No.2 and 5 by taking proper identification and documents and vouchers.
Advocate fee is fixed at 1,500/-.
SCCH-17 32 MVC 402/2023Draw the award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 25 th day of October, 2025).
(KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM) XIX ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
PW1 Smt. Padma List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR
Ex.P2 True copy of Complaint
Ex.P3 True copy of Requisition
Ex.P4 True copy of Intimation
Ex.P5 & True copy of Spot Mhazar along with Sketch
6
Ex.P7 True copy of Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P8 True copy of Inquest report along with statements
Ex.P9 True copy IMV report
Ex.P10 True copy of PM report
Ex.P11 True copy of FSL report
Ex.P12 True copy of Head of Charge sheet
Ex.P13 Salary certificate 3 in nos.
Ex.P14 Notarized copies of Aadhaar Card and Voter ID
SCCH-17 33 MVC 402/2023
List of witnesses examined on respondents' side:
RW1: Sri Ragavendra RW2: G.L. Santhosh Kumar RW3: Pradeep Kumar G RW4: Mahadevaswamy
List of documents exhibited on respondents' side:
Ex.R1 Authorization letter
Ex.R2 Copy of AG slip
Ex.R3 Salary certificate
Ex.R4 Copy of GPA final withdrawal
Ex.R5 Authorization letter
Ex.R6 Copy of Policy
Ex.R7 Authorization letter
Ex.R8 Letter dated 19.04.2025
Ex.R9 Notarized copy of Aadhar Card
Ex.R10 Notarized copy of Driving Licence of Kumara K.
Ex.R11 Notarized copy of RC of KA-55-A-1747
(KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM)
XIX ADDL.JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & MACT,
BENGALURU.
Digitally signed by
KANCHI KANCHI
MAYANNA
MAYANNA GOUTAM
GOUTAM Date: 2025.10.29
13:49:04 +0530