Bangalore District Court
Rajanna Gari Jayaprakash vs Pradeep Kumar H on 10 October, 2025
KABC020086612023
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.1869/2023
Dated this 10th day of October, 2025
Petitioners: 1. Rajanna Gari Jayaprakash S/o K.S.
Rajanna,
Aged about 54 years,
2. R. Kalpana W/o Rajanna Gari
Jayaprakash,
Aged about 46 years,
Both are residing at 9/109,
Ratnagiri, Anantha Pura,
Andhra Pradesh.
(Sri R. Chandra Shekhar, Advocate)
V/s
Respondents: 1. Pradeep Kumar H. S/o K.H.
Hanumantharayappa,
R/at # Sri Sai Sapthagiri,
2 MVC No.1869/2023
60 Feet Road, Sapthagiri Extn.,
Tumkur - 572 102.
(RC owner of Baleno Car bearing
Reg. No.KA-06-Z-5803)
(Sri K. Krishna Murthy, Advocate)
2. The General Manager,
The Universal Sompo General
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
3rd Floor, K. V. V. Samrat,
217/A, 3rd Main, Outer Ring Road,
Kasturinagar, Bengaluru- 560043.
(Policy No.2367/6142315400000,
dated 15-06-2020 to 14-06-2023)
(Sri H. K. Ramamurthy, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/- from the respondents, on account of death of J. Rohithkumar, who is son of petitioners No.1 and 2, in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 3 MVC No.1869/2023
On 31-01-2023 at about 11.30 p.m., the deceased J. Rohithkumar was returning from birthday party along with his relative by name Pradeepkumar, in Baleno Car bearing Reg. No.KA-06-Z-5803. The said vehicle was driven by Pradeepkumar. When they reached near C.M. Nagaraju Farm, Honnagangaiahnapalya, Sondekoppa-Nelamangala road, Bengaluru, he drove the same with high speed, in rash and negligent manner, without observing any traffic norms and regulations, endangering the human life and dashed against the baniyan tree. Due to said impact, the car fell down into the pit and all the inmates of the car sustained grievous injuries. The deceased Rohithkumar sustained severe head injury. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Harsha Hospital, Nelamangala, wherein he was examined and declared brought dead, at about 12.30 p.m. Earlier to the accident, the deceased was working in a Tata Consultancy Company, Bengaluru and was earning Rs.11,00,000/- per annum. He was contributing his entire earnings to his family. 4 MVC No.1869/2023 Due to untimely death of a sole bread earner, the petitioners are struggling for their livelihood. The Nelamangala Rural Police have registered the case against the driver of the said car for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 304(A) of I.P.C. The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Hence, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition and award compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/- 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 and filed their separate written statements.
4. The respondent No.1 in his written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. He has admitted that, he is the registered owner cum driver of the Baleno car bearing Reg. No.KA-06-Z-5803. Further it is 5 MVC No.1869/2023 contended that, the accident has occurred due to sudden upside of the car on the road and consequently the driver of the said car lost control over the said vehicle and it fell down. Due to the said accident inmates of car sustained injuries and J. Rohith Kumar succumbed to the fatal injuries. The compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. He has denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased. Further it is contended that, as on the date of accident the Baleno car bearing No.KA-06-Z-5803 was insured with respondent No.2 vide policy No.2367/61423154/00/000, valid from 15-06-2020 to 14-06-2023. As such, the said insurance policy was in force and driver of the said car was having valid driving licence and the said vehicle was having valid registration certificate and fitness certificate, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation, if any, awarded to the petitioners by this Court. For the above denials and contentions, it prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6 MVC No.1869/2023
5. Whereas, the respondent No.2 in its written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has contended that, it has issued a Bundled Motor Vehicle Policy bearing No.2367/61423154/00/000, in respect of car bearing No.KA-06-Z-5803, which covers own damage risk for the period from 15-06-2020 to 14-016-2021 and third party risk from 15-06-2020 to 14-06-2023. Hence, as on the date of alleged accident there was no coverage of inmates/passengers, in respect of car bearing Reg. No.KA-06- Z-5803, as the respondent No.1/owner has not paid additional premium to the inmates/passengers. On this ground alone the claim petition is liable to be dismissed as against the respondent No.2. Further it is contended that, the driver of the offending vehicle had not possessed valid and effective driving licence and the said vehicle was not having permit. The respondent No.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, as he knowingly has allowed his driver to drive the insured vehicle, who did not possess valid 7 MVC No.1869/2023 and effective driving license and without having permit. Further it is contended that, if at all the alleged accident has taken place, it is only due to rash and negligence on the part of deceased, who was driving the respondent No.1 car bearing No.KA-06-Z-5803 in rash and negligent manner, without holding driving licence, without wearing seat belt and he himself has caused the alleged accident. Therefore, due to the negligence of the deceased himself, the alleged incident has taken place. It has denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased. It has denied the mode and occurrence of the accident and also involvement of vehicle bearing No.KA- 06-Z-5803, as mentioned in the claim petition. Further, it has sought permission to contest even on behalf of respondent No.1, as per Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 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. The compensation claimed is highly excessive and 8 MVC No.1869/2023 exorbitant. For the above denials and contentions, it has prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, deceased J. Rohith Kumar has succumbed to the injuries sustained in vehicular accident, alleged to have been occurred on 31-01-2023 at about 11.30 p.m., due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Baleno Car bearing Reg. No. KA-06-Z-5803 ?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?9 MVC No.1869/2023
7. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 has got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 36 documents as Ex.P.1 to 36. They have also examined one more witness namely Mahesh G.K., as P.W.2 and closed their side. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has examined its representative/Legal Manager as R.W.1 and got marked one document as Ex.R.1 and closed its side. Whereas, the respondent No.1 has not adduced any evidence on his behalf.
8. 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 decision in support of his arguments:
i. New India Assurance Company Limited V/s. Yallavva and another, in MFA No.30131/2010 (MV-I), dated 12-05-2020. 10 MVC No.1869/2023 Whereas, the counsel for respondent No.2 has relied on the following decision in support of his arguments:
i. Pula Shanmugam and another V/s.
Yugender Revellah and others, in CMA No.2093/2023, dated 29-01-2025. ii. The Managing Director, M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s. A. Siva and others, in CMA No.1362/2023, dated 30- 08-2024.
9. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
10. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioners that, on 31-01-2023 at about 11.30 p.m., when the deceased J. 11 MVC No.1869/2023 Rohithkumar was returning from birthday party along with his relative by name Pradeepkumar, in Baleno Car bearing Reg. No.KA-06-Z-5803 and when they were near C.M. Nagaraju Farm, Honnagangaiahnapalya, Sondekoppa- Nelamangala road, Bengaluru, the said Pradeepkumar drove the car with high speed, in rash and negligently, without observing any traffic norms and regulations and dashed against the baniyan tree. Due to said impact, the car fell down into the pit and all the inmates of the car sustained grievous injuries. The deceased Rohithkumar has sustained severe head injury and succumbed to said injuries, on the way to Hospital, at Nelamangala. Further it is contended that, earlier to the accident, the deceased was working in a Tata Consultancy Company, Bengaluru and was earning Rs.11,00,000/- per annum. 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. 12 MVC No.1869/2023
11. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 has got examined himself as P.W.1, by filing his examination-in- chief affidavit, wherein he has reiterated the entire averments made in the petition. Further, in support of their oral evidence, the petitioners have got marked total 36 documents as Ex.P.1 to 36. Out of the said documents, Ex.P.1 is true copy of F.I.R., Ex.P.2 is true copy of first information statement, Ex.P.3 is true copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P.4 is true copy of sketch, Ex.P.5 is true copy of Motor Vehicles Accident report, Ex.P.6 is true copy of inquest, Ex.P.7 is true copy of post-mortem report, Ex.P.8 is true copy of notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act, Ex.P.9 is true copy of reply to notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act, Ex.P.10 is true copy of charge-sheet, Ex.P.11 is notarized copy of Aadhar card of deceased, Ex.P.12 to 22 are notarized copy of SSLC, PUC, Engineering marks cards (total
8) and Convocation certificate of the deceased, Ex.P.23 is letter of appointment, Ex.P.24 are pay-slips from August- 13 MVC No.1869/2023 2022 to January-2023, Ex.P.25 copy of the Form No.16 with annextures, Ex.P.26 is true copy of statement of accounts, Ex.P.27 and 28 are notarized copy of Aadhar cards of the petitioner No.1 and 2, Ex.P.29 and 30 are notarized copy of PAN cards of the petitioners No.1 and 2, Ex.P.31 is authorization letter, Ex.P.32 is copy of appointment letter, Ex.P.33 is copy of job offer letter, Ex.P.34 is final settlement details, Ex.P.35 are pay-slips from July-2022 to January-2023 and Ex.P.36 is form No.16 for the year 2022-23.
12. On meticulously going through the above police documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 10, prima-facie it reveals that, the alleged accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1/driver of offending Baleno car bearing No.KA-06-Z-5803. Due to over speed the driver has lost control over the said vehicle and dashed against the baniyan tree. Due to said impact, the car fell down into the pit and the deceased has sustained grievous injuries on his head and succumbed to said injuries, on the 14 MVC No.1869/2023 way to the hospital. The investigation officer in his final report/charge-sheet, marked as Ex.P.10, has clearly stated that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Baleno car bearing No.KA-06-Z-5803 and the deceased has succumbed to grievous injuries sustained in the said accident.
13. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that, in the present case, the date, time and place of accident, involvement of offending Baleno car bearing No.KA-06-Z-5803 in the said accident, issuance of insurance policy by the respondent No.2 in respect of said vehicle and its validity as on the date of accident, are not in dispute. But, the respondents No.1 and 2 have specifically denied the above averred facts and circumstances of the accident. Further, the respondent No.2 has taken specific contentions that, the accident in question has occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased, as he was driving car bearing No.KA-06-Z-5803 in rash and negligent manner, without holding driving licence, without 15 MVC No.1869/2023 wearing seat belt and he himself caused the alleged accident. Further it is contended that, the petitioners in collusion with the respondent No.1 and the Police have falsely implicated the car bearing No.KA-06-Z-5803 in the alleged accident. But, the respondent No.2 has failed to establish the said contentions. Except the self serving statements of R.W.1, who is the representative/Legal Manager of respondent No.2, there is no other corroborative oral or documentary evidence placed on record by the respondent No.2 to show that, at the time of accident the deceased himself was driving the said car and the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. 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 respondent No.1/driver of offending Baleno car bearing No.KA-06-Z-5803 and dashing the same to baniyan tree. It is 16 MVC No.1869/2023 pertinent to note that, the respondent No.1 has unequivocally admitted in his written statement that, he is the owner-cum-driver of Baleno car bearing No.KA-06-Z- 5803, at the time of accident. Though, the learned counsel for respondents have cross-examined P.W.1 in length, nothing worth has been elicited from his mouth which creates doubt on the veracity of his evidence or which goes to show that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased or there was any contributory negligence on his part in the cause of accident.
14. Further, the Ex.P.3 spot mahazar and Ex.P.4 sketch also clearly speaks that, the said accident has taken place on the left side of 18 feet wide Sondekoppa-Nelamangala road, in front of C.M. Nagaraju Farm House, Honnnagangaiahna Palya village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, due to dashing the offending car bearing No.KA-06-Z-5803 to a baniyan tree, grown on the left side of the road. Further, as per the Motor Vehicle Accident Report, which is marked as 17 MVC No.1869/2023 Ex.P.5, the accident has not taken place due to any mechanical defects in the vehicle involved in the accident. When the accident was not caused due to any mechanical defects in the vehicle involved in the accident and there was no other vehicle involved in the accident, 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 car. Further, the investigation officer in his final Ex.P.10 final report/charge- sheet has clearly stated that, the accident in question is taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Baleno car bearing No.KA-06-Z-5803. Admittedly, the said final report/charge-sheet has not been challenged by the owner cum driver of offending vehicle. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the final report of the investigation officer and other police records, regarding the date, time and place of accident, involvement of the offending vehicle, rash and negligent driving of the 18 MVC No.1869/2023 driver of offending vehicle, injuries caused to the deceased in the said accident and cause of his death.
15. Further, the Ex.P.7 post-mortem report, clearly speaks that, the deceased J. Rohithkumar has died due to hypertensive shock as a result of injuries sustained in the 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 documents. 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 Baleno car bearing No.KA-06-Z-5803 and cause of death of deceased J. Rohithkumar.
16. Further, it is well settled principle of law that, in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are not 19 MVC No.1869/2023 required to prove the case as required to be done in a criminal trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Parameshwari V/s Amir Chand and others, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 635, has clearly held that, "in a road accident claim cases the strict principle of proof as in a criminal case are not required."
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bimla Devi and others V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 513, has clearly held that, "in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are merely required to establish their case on touch stone of preponderance of probability and the standard of proof on beyond reasonable doubt could not be applied."
18. Therefore, in the light of observations made in the above cited decisions and for the above stated reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioners have 20 MVC No.1869/2023 successfully proved through cogent and corroborative evidence that, the deceased J. Rohithkumar has succumbed to grievous injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 31-01-2023 at about 11.30 p.m., on Sondekoppa-Nelamangala road, in front of C.M. Nagaraju Farm House, Honnnagangaiahnapalya Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Baleno car bearing No.KA-06-Z-5803. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in Affirmative.
19. Issue No.2: While answering above issue, for the reasons stated therein, this Court has come to conclusion that, the petitioners have successfully proved through cogent and corroborative evidence that, the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Baleno car bearing No.KA-06-Z-5803 and deceased J. Rohithkumar has succumbed to grievous injuries sustained in the said accident. Now the petitioners are required to establish that, they are the legal representatives 21 MVC No.1869/2023 of the deceased. In this regard, they have produced their respective Aadhar cards and Aadhar card of the deceased, which are marked as Ex.P.11, 27 and 28. The said documents clearly goes to show that, the petitioners No.1 and 2 are parents of the deceased J. Rohithkumar. On the other hand, the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased J. Rohithkumar is not specifically denied by the respondent No.2 and even there is no contrary or rebuttal evidence on record with respect to same. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the documents produced by the petitioners and hold that, the petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased J. Rohithkumar.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of National Insurance Co. V/s Birender, reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356, has clearly held that, "The legal representatives of the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166(1). The major married son who is also earning and not fully dependant on the 22 MVC No.1869/2023 deceased, would be still covered by the expression "legal representative" of the deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera (supra) had expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the concerned legal representative. Notably, the expression "legal representative" has not been defined in the Act.
The Tribunal has a duty to make an award, determine the amount of compensation which is just and proper and specify the person or persons to whom such compensation would be paid. The latter part relates to the entitlement of compensation by a person who claims for the same.
It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major, married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only."
21. According to the ratio laid down in above decision, the legal representatives though not fully dependent on the deceased are entitled to claim compensation under all the 23 MVC No.1869/2023 heads i.e., under both conventional and non-conventional heads. In order to determine the compensation, the age, avocation, income, dependency, future prospects of the deceased and other conventional heads are to be ascertained.
22. The compensation towards loss of dependency: The oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners clearly establishes that, 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 24 MVC No.1869/2023 order to calculate the loss of dependency, the first step is to determine the age and income of the deceased.
i) Age and income of the deceased : The petitioners have averred that, the age of deceased as on the date of accident was 27 years. To substantiate the same, the petitioners have produced the Aadhar card of deceased J. Rohithkumar, which is marked as Ex.P.11, wherein the date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 09-03-1996. Admittedly, the accident taken place on 31-01-2023. Therefore, as on the date of accident the age of the deceased was about 27 years. The petitioners have stated that, as on the date of accident the deceased was working in Tata Consultancy Company, Bengaluru and was earning a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- per annum. To substantiate the same, they have produced notarized copy of SSLC, PUC, Engineering degree marks cards (total 8), Convocation certificate of deceased, Letter of Appointment, Pay-slip for the month of August-2022 to January-2023, copy of form 25 MVC No.1869/2023 No.16 with annexures, true copy of statement of accounts, copy of appointment letter, copy of job offer letter, final settlement details, pay slip from July-2022 to January-2023 and form No.16 for the year 2022-23, which are marked as Ex.P12 to 26 and 32 to 36. They have also examined the authorised person/HR-Assistant Manager of Tata Consultancy Company, to prove the avocation and income of the deceased. The P.W.2 has clearly deposed in his evidence that, since 7 months the deceased Rohitkumar was working in their company and he was paid salary of Rs.11,00,000/- per annum. Further, as per the Ex.P.32 Letter of Appointment issued by the Tata Consultancy Company, the deceased was appointed as I.T. Analyst in Grade C2 in the said company on 18-07-2022. As per Ex.P.24 pay slip for the month of December-2022, the gross salary of the deceased is Rs.76,595/- per month. After deducting professional tax of Rs.200/- and income tax of Rs.7,084/-, the net salary of the deceased will be Rs.69,311/- per month. But, as per Ex.P.25 26 MVC No.1869/2023 Form No.16, for the assessment year 2023-24, the total income of the deceased from salary is declared at Rs.5,53,951/- per annum and after deducting income tax amount of Rs.10,524/- paid, the net income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,43,427/- per annum. Therefore, the income of the deceased, as on the date of accident, is held at Rs.5,43,427/- per annum.
ii) 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 27 years and was not a permanent employee, the future prospects would be 40% of his income, which comes to Rs.2,17,371/- per annum. Therefore, the future prospects of the deceased is held as Rs.2,17,371/- per 27 MVC No.1869/2023 annum. If this income is added to the notional income, then it comes to Rs.7,60,798/- per annum.
iii) The deduction of personal expenses and calculating the multiplier: The family of the deceased consist of two persons i.e., petitioners No.1 and 2. The total number of the dependents of the deceased are two and admittedly the deceased has died bachelor. Therefore, deduction towards the personal expenses of deceased is taken as 50% of the total income, which comes to Rs.3,80,399/-. After deducting 50% out of total income, towards the personal expenses of deceased, the annual income of the deceased is held as Rs.3,80,399/-.
iv) As on the date of death, the age of the deceased was 27 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 28 MVC No.1869/2023 case is taken as 17. Accordingly, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency is held as Rs.64,66,783/-.
v) Compensation under conventional heads: In the present case, admittedly the petitioners No.1 and 2 are parents of deceased J. Rohithkumar. Hence, the petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled for compensation under the head of filial consortium. As per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the compensation under the following conventional heads is awarded:
a) Loss of estate - Rs. 15,000/-
b) Loss of consortium - Rs. 40,000/-
c) Funeral expenses - Rs. 15,000/-
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 29 MVC No.1869/2023 enhanced by 20%, the loss of estate comes to Rs.18,000/-, the loss of filial consortium comes to Rs.48,000/- each to petitioners No.1 and 2 and funeral expenses comes to Rs.18,000/-.
23. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for compensation under different heads as follows:
Sl. Head of
Amount/Rs
No. Compensation
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 64,66,783-00
2. Loss of filial consortium Rs. 96,000-00
3. Loss of estate Rs. 18,000-00
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000-00
Total Rs. 65,98,783-00
Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.65,98,783/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petition till its realization.
24. Liability: Admittedly, as on the date of accident the respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the 30 MVC No.1869/2023 insurer of offending Baleno car bearing No.KA-06-Z-5803. As per Ex.R.1 insurance policy bearing No.2367/61423154/00/000, issued by the respondent No.2, in respect of offending Baleno car bearing No.KA-06-Z-5803, the own damage risk was covered from 15-06-2020 to 14-06- 2021 and third party risk was covered from 15-06-2020 to 14-06-2023. The respondent No.2 has taken specific contention that, the Ex.R.1 policy covers own damage risk for 1 year, from 15-06-2020 to 14-06-2021 and third party risk for 3 years from 15-06-2020 to 14-06-2023. Hence, as on the date of alleged accident there was no coverage of inmates/passengers, as the respondent No.1/owner of car bearing No.KA-06-Z-5803 has not paid additional premium in respect of inmates/passengers travelling in the said vehicle. As such, the respondent No.2 insurance company is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.1 or to pay compensation to the petitioners. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 has contended that, as on the date of 31 MVC No.1869/2023 accident his car bearing No.KA-06-Z-5803 was insured with respondent No.2, vide policy No.2367/61423154/00/000 and it was valid for the period from 15-06-2020 to 14-06-2023. As such, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the above compensation to the petitioners.
25. As rightly contended by the respondent No.2, the Ex.R.1 insurance policy bearing No.2367/61423154/00/000, issued in respect of car bearing No.KA-06-Z-5803, covers own damage risk for only 1 year, from 15-06-2020 to 14-06- 2021 and third party risk for 3 years from 15-06-2020 to 14- 06-2023. Whereas, the accident in question has occurred on 31-01-2023 i.e. after lapse of own damage coverage period. The inmates of car are not automatically covered under a basic bundled policy. The coverage for passengers requires the purchase of an additional premium to add 'personal accident cover' or a similar endorsement for occupants. The standard bundled policy typically only covers the 32 MVC No.1869/2023 compulsory third party liability, not the passengers inside the vehicle, unless specifically extended.
26. Admittedly, the Ex.R.1 insurance policy purchased by the respondent No.1 is Bundled Motor Vehicle Policy (Private Vehicle), which covers own damage risk for only 1 year, from 15-06-2020 to 14-06-2021 and third party risk for 3 years from 15-06-2020 to 14-06-2023. It is clearly mentioned in the Ex.R.1 Insurance Policy, at page No.5 that, "in the event that, the policy holder does not renew the own damage cover with the company or purchase own damage cover from another insurer or allows own damage cover to lapse without renewal, then for the remaining period of the policy, the said contract shall operate and be construed strictly as a Long Term-Third Party Liability Only Policy, in accordance with applicant statutory provisions." The respondent No.1 has not produced any document to show that, after lapse of one year he has got renewed the said policy for further period, in respect of own 33 MVC No.1869/2023 damage risk coverage, by paying extra premium to the respondent No.2 company. The Ex.R.1 insurance policy do not cover the risk of inmates/passenger of the car bearing No.KA-06-Z-5803, as on the date of accident. Further, the deceased being the inmate of the offending car, his legal heirs can claim neither under own damage, nor under third party coverage. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that, the occupants of private vehicle are not considered as third party under the Motor Vehicles Act, unless additional premium is paid by the insured. When as on the date of accident there was no contract in between the respondent No.1 & 2, with respect to coverage of risk of inmates/passenger of the car bearing No.KA-06-Z-5803, the question of holding the respondent No.2 liable to pay compensation to the petitioners does not arise at all. Further, as the accident has taken place after the date of coming into force of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1988, even the principle of pay and recovery, wherein the 34 MVC No.1869/2023 insurance company is liable to pay the third party and recover the same from the insured, is not applicable to the case in hand. Therefore, in such circumstances and for the above stated reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the respondent No.2 insurance company is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.1 or to pay compensation to the petitioners.
27. The evidence placed on record by the petitioners clearly establishes that, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-06-Z- 5803 the said accident has occurred and the deceased has succumbed to grievous injuries sustained in the said accident. In such circumstances, the respondent No.1 being the owner of offending vehicle is vicariously liable to compensate the petitioners for the damage caused by the said vehicle. Therefore, for the above stated reasons, holding that, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.65,98,783/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, 35 MVC No.1869/2023 from the date of petition till its realization, from the respondent No.1, I answer Issue No.2 in Partly Affirmative.
28. Issue No.3: In view of the above findings, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.65,98,783/- (Rupees sixty five lakh ninty eight thousand seven hundred and eighty three only), with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondent No.1 is liable to pay the above compensation amount to the petitioners and he is directed to pay the said amount within two months from the date of this order.
The above compensation amount is apportioned as follows:36 MVC No.1869/2023
Petitioner No.1 - Father - 50% Petitioner No.2 - Mother - 50% Out of total compensation amount awarded in favour of petitioners No.1 and 2, 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.
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 10 th day of October, 2025) (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.37 MVC No.1869/2023
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners P.W.1: Rajanna Gari Jayaprakash S/o K.S. Rajanna P.W.2: Mahesh G.K. S/o Krishne Gowda Documents marked on behalf of petitioners Ex.P.1: True copy of F.I.R.
Ex.P.2: True copy of First Information Statement Ex.P.3: True copy of Spot Mahazar Ex.P.4: True copy of Sketch Ex.P.5: True copy of M.V.A. Report Ex.P.6: True copy of Inquest Ex.P.7: True copy of Post-mortem Report Ex.P.8 : True copy of Notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act Ex.P.9: True copy of Reply to Notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act Ex.P.10: True copy of Charge-sheet Ex.P.11: Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of the deceased Ex.P.12 to Notarized copy of SSLC, PUC, Engineering 22: marks cards (total 8), Convocation Certificate of deceased Ex.P.23: Letter of Appointment Ex.P.24: Pay Slips for the month of August-2022 to January-2023 Ex.P.25: Copy of the Form No.16 with annexures 38 MVC No.1869/2023 Ex.P.26: True copy of Statement of Accounts Ex.P.27 & Notarized copy of Aadhar Cards of 28: petitioners No.1 and 2 Ex.P.29 & Notarized copy of PAN Cards of petitioners 30: No.1 and 2 Ex.P.31: Authorization Letter Ex.P.32: Copy of Appointment Letter Ex.P.33: Copy of Job Offer Letter Ex.P.34: Final Settlement Details Ex.P.35: Pay Slips from July-2022 to January-2023 Ex.P.36: Form No.16 for the year 2022-23
Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents R.W.1: R. Bhargavan S/o T. Ranganathan Documents marked on behalf of respondents Ex.R.1: True copy of Insurance Policy along with terms and conditions (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.