Bangalore District Court
Akyamma vs Basavaraju K N on 19 June, 2025
KABC020371532024
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 19th day of June - 2025
M.V.C.No. 4338/2024
Petitioners 1. Smt. Akyamma,
W/o Raman,
Aged about 60 years,
2. Ms. Chandana S.,
D/o Shekar,
Aged about 21 years,
All the above petitioners are
residing at House No.40,
Govt. High School, Bengaluru South
(Additional Zila Bangalore)
(By Sri Ashok K.M., Adv.,)
V/s
Respondents 1. Sri. Basavaraju K.N.,
Residing at No.26,
Rudreshwara Nilaya,
SCCH-17 2 MVC 4338/2024
Jaimuni Rao Circle,
Magadi Road,Opposite to
Shrusthi Hotel Agrahara,
Sasarahalli, Bangalore North,
Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore,
Karnataka- 560079.
(RC Owner of the Car No.KA-04-
MM-5685)
(By Sri K.R. Ramesh, Advocate )
2. M/s United General Insurance
Company Ltd.,
Regional Office 5th & 6th floor,
Krishi Bhavan, Nrupathunga road,
Bangalore - 560001.
(By Sri. V. Raghunathan, Adv.)
JUDGMENT
This judgment is emerged consequent upon the petition filed by the petitioners U/S 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation on account of death of Manjunath, in the road accident dated 22-02-2024.
2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, are as follows:
On 22-02-2024 at about 8.45 a.m., the deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider in the two wheeler No. SCCH-17 3 MVC 4338/2024 KA-09-HF-0755 which was ridden by one Venkatesh near ring road, Hosahundi village circle, Mysore Taluk, at that time the driver of Car No.KA-04-MM-5685 driven the same at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle in which the deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider from behind and caused the accident. Due to the impact the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Thereafter the petitioners have performed funeral and obsequies ceremonies by spending an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-.
At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 44 years, doing Real Estate Business, and earning Rs.50,000/- p.m. Due to untimely death of deceased the petitioners have suffered mentally and physically, they have lost their bread earner.
The petitioner No.1 is the mother and petitioner No.2 is the brother's daughter of the deceased, have lost SCCH-17 4 MVC 4338/2024 their beloved care taker. The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Hence prays to award compensation of Rs.75,00,000/- with interest.
3. After service of notices, respondent No.1and 2 have appeared before the court, through their respective counsels and filed separate written statements.
The respondent No.1- owner has filed written statement by denying all the averments of the petition. Respondent No.1 has contended that the accident taken place solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-09-HF-0755. Further the respondent No.1 has submitted that the offending vehicle is insured with the 2nd respondent and as on the date of accident the policy was valid and in force and also as on the date of alleged accident the driver of the car was having valid and effective driving SCCH-17 5 MVC 4338/2024 licence to drive the car. Further this respondent has denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. Hence prays to dismiss the petition against him.
After service of summons, the respondent No.2 insurance company has appeared through its counsel and filed their written statement by admitting the issuance of policy in respect of Car No.KA-04-MM-5685. Further this respondent has contended that the compensation as claimed by the petitioners is excessive, exorbitant and fanciful. Further contended that, there is no compliance of Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act. Further this respondent has denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. Hence 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 6 MVC 4338/2024
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Manjunath died in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22-02-2024 at about 8.45 a.m., near Ring road, Hosahundi village circle, Mysuru Taluk, due to the rash and negligence driving of the Car bearing No. KA.04-MM-5685 by its driver?
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 first petitioner is examined as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. Further the wife of the deceased examined as PW2 and got marked one document at Ex.P.9.SCCH-17 7 MVC 4338/2024
6. Heard the arguments. The learned counsel for petitioners has filed written arguments and perused the material evidence that is available on record.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under.
Issue No.1: In the affirmative,
Issue No.2: In the affirmative,
[
Issue No.3: In the affirmative,
Issue No.4: As per final orders
for the following.-
REASONS
ISSUE NO.1:
8. The petitioners to prove their claim have produced true copies of FIR, complaint, inquest report, PM report and head of charge sheet, which are marked under Ex.P.1 to P5.
9. As per the documents, produced by the petitioners, Ex.P1- FIR is came to be registered on the basis of first information given by one Srinivasa C. as per SCCH-17 8 MVC 4338/2024 Ex.P2. In the said Ex.P1 & 2, the first informant alleged the rash and negligent driving by the driver of Car bearing No.KA-04-MM-5685. On the other hand, the respondents have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence to rebut the case of the petitioner.
10. Respondent No.2 cross-examined PW1 at length. It is a well-settled principle of law that mere suggestions are insufficient to dislodge or disprove a party's case. Suggestions made during cross-examination have no evidentiary value. In the absence of substantive evidence or any material elicited during cross-
examination, the Court cannot base its conclusion on mere suggestions. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, in Legal Heirs of Umedmiya R. Rathod v. State of Gujarat (First Appeal No. 5952 of 1995), has affirmed this principle. In the present case, although learned counsel for the respondent put several questions during the cross-examination of PW1 to impute negligence on the SCCH-17 9 MVC 4338/2024 part of the victim, all such questions were answered in the negative. Except for mere suggestions and denials, no significant material was elicited. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1. It is pertinent to note that the fact of the death of the victim in a motor vehicle accident is not in dispute.
11. Whether the accident was caused by the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle or due to the negligence of the victim needs to be ascertained. In this regard, the Court has carefully perused the objections filed by the respondent and the documents produced by the petitioner in support of their claim.
12. As per the objection of the respondent, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the victim. The respondent No.2 contends that the victim's negligence caused the accident and consequently, the insurer (respondent No.2) is not liable to pay compensation. SCCH-17 10 MVC 4338/2024
13. However, according to the charge sheet, the driver of the Car bearing registration No.KA-04-MM-5685 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 and 304A of IPC.
14. On careful scrutiny of Ex.P1 to P5, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the version of the petitioners.
15. At this juncture it is worth to refer to the decision reported in Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal 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. SCCH-17 11 MVC 4338/2024
16. 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 same.
17. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Anoop Maheshwari v. Shiv Kumar Singh & Others, 2022 SCC OnLine All 1181, held that the burden of proving contributory negligence lies upon the respondents. It is the duty of the driver of the offending vehicle to explain the accident. In the present case, the driver of offending vehicle has not entered the witness box to offer any explanation. As the driver is the only person with special knowledge of the facts, his failure to testify significantly weakens the respondents' case. Along with this if we perused the Ex.P3 inquest and Ex.P4 post mortem report it is evident that the death of deceased Sri. Manjunath is SCCH-17 12 MVC 4338/2024 due to shock and haemorrhages as a result of multiple injuries sustained by him at the time of accident. In the absence of such crucial evidence and considering the corroboration from the charge sheet, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the version of the petitioner. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2
18. As held herein above, the petitioners have proved that Sri Manjunath died on 22-02-2024 due to the injuries sustained in RTA, which is caused by the driver of the Car bearing No.KA-04-MM-5685.
19. As contended in the petition, that the petitioner No.1 is the mother and petitioner No.2 is the brother's daughter of the deceased.
20. 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 of SCCH-17 13 MVC 4338/2024 petitioners with deceased which are marked at Ex.P.6 & P.7. During the course of recording the evidence the notarized copies of Aadhaar cards are compared with the original documents and found correct.
21. It is contended by the petitioners that as the father of the petitioner No.2 who is the brother of the deceased was not taking proper care of the petitioner No.2, the deceased was taking care of the petitioner No.2. It is stated that the petitioner No.2 was the dependant of the deceased. No evidence is available to deny the said contention. As per these documents the petitioners are the dependents of the deceased, but the respondents do not dispute the relationship of the petitioners with deceased. The respondents do not dispute the Voter ID card and Aadhaar cards produced by the petitioners. The respondents not adduced any evidence to disprove the dependency of the petitioners with the deceased. SCCH-17 14 MVC 4338/2024
22. In this case the wife of the deceased is examined as PW2 who deposed that as presently she is working in a Factory and earning reasonable salary, she is not interested in any share in the compensation. The said evidence of the PW2 discloses that during the lifetime of the deceased she was the dependent. But presently she is not claiming any compensation, as such it is considered as only 2 dependents on the deceased.
23. In the absence of contradictory evidence the evidence of the petitioners is to be accepted and it is considered that, petitioner No.1 and 2 are the dependents of the deceased. Accordingly, issue No.2 answered in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.3:
24. As held herein above, the petitioners proved that Sri Manjunath died on 22-02-2024 due to the injuries sustained in RTA, which is caused by the driver of the Car bearing No.KA-04-MM-5685.
SCCH-17 15 MVC 4338/2024
25. Now the quantum of compensation is to be decided. The petitioners have not produced Aadhaar card of the deceased. As per the Post mortem report and inquest report the age of the deceased is 44 years as on the date of accident. No other documents are produced by the petitioners to over come this contradictions. Hence this court is accepting the age of the deceased as 44 years.
26. As stated in the petition deceased was an Engineer and was doing Real Estate Business, and earning Rs.50,000/- p.m. To prove the said fact, the petitioners produced Ex.P8 Degree Certificate wherein it shows that the deceased completed Bachelor of Engineering in Electronics and Communication. The petitioners have not produced any documents to show that exact income of the deceased.
27. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgments by arguing that as the deceased SCCH-17 16 MVC 4338/2024 was an Engineer, the notional income has to be considered as Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/-
In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioners filed memo along with following citations:
1. MFA No.1403/2020 - The Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation V/s Vimala and another - Dtd. 24th April 2024.
2. MFA No.100273/2023 - Smt. Sunanda and others V/s Husensab and another, Divisional Bench Dtd. 30th May 2024.
The Ex.P8 shows that the deceased Manjunatha completed Engineering in Electronics and Communication.
28. In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2023 ACJ 1653 between Kandaswamy and others V/s. Linda Briyan and another, held as follows;
"The only question for consideration herein is with regard to the quantum of SCCH-17 17 MVC 4338/2024 compensation. The accident had occurred on 28.09.2008 and the deceased was aged 28 years. It is the claim of the appellants that the deceased had completed B-Tech course and also done a course in Computer Applications. Though, the salary certificate exhibited at Annexure P- 35 was relied upon by Reason: the appellants before the MACT, the salary as indicated in the Salary Certificate has not been accepted by the MACT since the P.W.2 who had issued the salary certificate himself has stated that he had started his company about three months back and there was no other document to establish the same.
Be that as it may, even in that circumstance, when it is established that the deceased was an engineering graduate and the employment opportunities during the year 2008 is kept in view, even on a conservative estimate the sum of Rs.25,000/- to be reckoned would be justified. In that view, in the instant case we would reckon income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- per month. Towards the same, 40% is to be awarded as `future prospects' which would be in a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, the total income would be Rs.35,000/- per month of which 50% is to be deducted, as the deceased was Bachelor. The amount of Rs.17,500/- if taken on the annual basis and the appropriate multiplier of `17' is applied, the amount would be in a sum of Rs.35,70,000/-. The sum of Rs.70,000/- SCCH-17 18 MVC 4338/2024
is added towards `conventional heads'. Hence, the total compensation would work out Rs.36,40,000/-. The High Court has awarded a sum of Rs.10,97,000/-. The appellants would therefore be entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs. 25,43,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition before the MACT till the date of payment".
29. Further in the judgment reported 2020 Supreme (Kar) 1335: Sherely Jeevan Vs. R.K.S.Infra Tech Pvt. Ltd., Wherein the monthly income of the deceased was considered at Rs.30,000/- since deceased was a Engineering student.
By applying the same to the present case on hand, it is to be noted here that the deceased had a bright future ahead of him and would have earned at least 30,000/- per month. The Ex.P8 certificate discloses that the deceased Manjunatha was completed the Engineering in Electronics and Communication. The reported judgment as quoted above is of the year 2020 and the present accident is of the year 2024. Hence, the notional SCCH-17 19 MVC 4338/2024 income of the deceased can be considered as Rs.32,000/- per month which is based on the education qualification as per Ex.P8.
30. As per Sarala varma's case the proper multiplier applicable to the age of deceased is 14. Since there is two dependents on the deceased one third of the income is to be deducted towards his personal expenses, then the total loss of dependency would be Rs.18,48,000/- (Rs.16,500/- X12 X 14 = Rs.27,72,000/- minus one third of the income i.e., (Rs.9,24,000/-) = Rs.18,48,000/-).
31. 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 SCCH-17 20 MVC 4338/2024 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."
32. 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;
"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, SCCH-17 21 MVC 4338/2024 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)".
33. As per the above decisions 25% out of loss of dependency has to be granted towards future prospects which would Rs.4,62,000/-.
42. The petitioners are entitled for Rs.44,000/- each under the loss of consortium ( Rs.40,000/x 10% hike every three years from 2017 as per Pranay Sethi Case). 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 22 MVC 4338/2024
The petitioners are entitled for compensation under the following heads:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 18,48,000/-
2. Loss of future prospects Rs. 4,62,000/-
3. Loss of consortium Rs. 88,000/-
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/-
5. Transportation of dead body Rs. 16,500/-
Total Rs. 24,31,000/-
43. Liability:- The respondent No.2 insurance company in its objection statement has admitted the issuance of policy to the offending Car bearing No. KA-
04-MM-5685. No other grounds are made out to show the violation of policy conditions by the respondent No.1
- owner. Accordingly, the respondent No.2 insurance company shall indemnify the liability of respondent No.1 owner and they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., Accordingly, this issue answered partly in the affirmative.
SCCH-17 23 MVC 4338/2024ISSUE NO.4:-
44. 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.
The petitioners are entitled for total compensation amount of Rs.24,31,000/- (Rupees Twenty four lakh thirty one thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.,. from the date of petition till the realization from respondents.
The compensation amount awarded under the head of future prospectus will not carries any interest.
The petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled for the compensation at the ratio of 75:25.
The respondent No.2 insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within 60 days from the date of this order.SCCH-17 24 MVC 4338/2024
Out of awarded amount of petitioner No.1, 50% shall be released to petitioner No.1, on her proper identification and remaining 50% shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in her name in any Scheduled Bank, for a period of three years.
Entire amount of petitioner No.2 is directed to be released on proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at 1,500/-. Draw the award accordingly. (Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 19th day of June, 2025).
(KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM) XIX ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
PW.1 Smt Akyamma PW.2 Smt Pavithra
List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR
SCCH-17 25 MVC 4338/2024
Ex.P2 True copy of Complaint
Ex.P3 True copy of Inquest report
Ex.P4 True copy of PM report
Ex.P5 True copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P6 Notarized copy of Voter ID Card
Ex.P7 Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner No.2
Ex.P8 Notarized copy of Marks Card of the deceased
Ex.P9 Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of PW.2
List of witnesses examined on respondents' side:
- None -
List of documents exhibited on respondents' side:
-NIL-
XIX ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM, Bengaluru.Digitally signed
KANCHI by KANCHI
MAYANNA
MAYANNA GOUTAM
GOUTAM Date: 2025.07.02
13:34:17 +0530