Bangalore District Court
Ramesha vs Ramachandraiah V C on 3 February, 2026
KABC020048832025
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU CITY
SCCH-4
PRESENT: Smt.Gayathri S Kate,
B.Com., LL.B.,
XVIII ADDL., JUDGE & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 3rd day of February -2026
MVC No.662/2025
PETITIONERS: 1. Ramesha
S/o Kajanegowda
Age 62 years
Yattambadi, Kasaba hobli,
Malavalli Taluk
Mandya district
2. Bharathi.R
C/o Upendra Kumar N.
Age 42 years
Iggaluru, Channapattana Taluk
Ramanagara district-562138
3. Arathi.R
C/o Gopalakrishna.Y
Age 39 years
Kalegowdanakoppalu,
SCCH-4 2 MVC No.662/2025
Kasaba hobli,
Krishnarajapete Taluk,
Mandya-571426
4. Keerthi.Y.R.
C/o Siddaramu
Age 37 years
Honganidoddi, Uyyamballi hobli,
Kanakapura Taluk
Ramanagara district.
(By Sri.BGB., Adv.,)
V/s
RESPONDENTS: 1. V.C.Ramachandraiah
S/o Chikkavenkatagiri
Vaddaradoddi, Sathanur hobli,
Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagara district.
(Exparte)
2. ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Company Ltd.,
No.121, Estate, 9th floor
Dickenson Road, MG road
Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri.MKMR., Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this petition U/s 166 of the Motor vehicles Act 1989, claiming compensation amount of Rs.18,00,000/- with costs and interest from SCCH-4 3 MVC No.662/2025 date of accident till date of realization, in respect of death of Savithramma who succumbed to injuries on 01.01.2025 in Road Traffic Accident.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner are summarized as under:
On 01.01.2025 at about 7.00 p.m., the deceased Savithramma was proceeding from Yattambadi to Honganidoddi, near Uppakeredoddi village towards Achhalu. At that time, rider of the bike bearing No.KA-
42-EE-9958 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against pedestrian Savithramma. Due to the impact of accident, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
3. The petitioners have incurred a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards transportation of body, funeral, hospitalization and other expenses.
SCCH-4 4 MVC No.662/2025
4. Prior to the date of the accident, the deceased Savithramma was very hale and healthy and was aged about 52 years and she was doing agriculture, dairy farming and milk selling. She was earning Rs.25,000/- per month from said avocation and she used to contribute all her earnings towards maintenance of her family. Due to sudden death of deceased, the petitioners have suffered mental shock and agony and their lives have came to stand still. The petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioner No.2 to 4 are the daughters of the deceased and they have lost love and affection of the deceased and their lives have became miserable and hence this petition.
5. 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.18,00,000/- with interest.
SCCH-4 5 MVC No.662/2025
6. After registration of the petition, notices were issued against respondents. In-spite of service of the notice, the respondent No.1 has not appeared before this court. Hence, after due service of notice against the respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 is placed exparte. The respondent No. 2 has appeared before this court and the respondent No.2 has filed its written statement on its behalf and denying the entire petition averments. The insurance policy was in force as on the date of the accident and the liability if any is subjected to terms and conditions of the policy. Further denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. They also denied the expenses made towards funeral and other ceremonies. The compensation claimed by the petitioners are excessive and exorbitant. He also denied the other contents of the petition. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
SCCH-4 6 MVC No.662/2025
7. In order to substantiate the claim petition, the petitioner No.4 is examined as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. Thereby the evidence of petitioner side was completed and case was posted for respondent evidence. The respondent No.2 has examined its official as RW.1 and got marked two documents as per Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2 and case was posted for arguments.
8. I have heard the arguments on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
9. Upon considering rival contentions raised by the parties, this tribunal has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Savithramma died in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 01.01.2025 at about 7.00 p.m., on NH-948, near Uppakeredoddi village, Sathanooru Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara due to the rash and negligence riding of the Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-42-EE-9958 by its rider?SCCH-4 7 MVC No.662/2025
2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal heirs and dependents of deceased?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
4. What order or award?
10. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: In the affirmative,
Issue No.2 : In the affirmative.
Issue No.3: Partly in the affirmative,
Issue No.4: As per the final orders for
the following:-
REASONS
ISSUE NO.1:
11. It is the specific case of the petitioner that on 01.01.2025 at about 7.00 p.m., the deceased Savithramma was proceeding from Yattambadi to Honganidoddi, near Uppakeredoddi village towards Achhalu. At that time, rider of the bike bearing No.KA- 42-EE-9958 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against pedestrian Savithramma. Due to the impact of accident, the deceased succumbed to the SCCH-4 8 MVC No.662/2025 injuries on the spot.
12. To substantiate the petition averments, petitioner No.4 examined herself as PW.1 and got marked documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. Ex.P.1 FIR and complaint which reveals that one Keerthi/petitioner No.4 has lodged complaint on 01.01.2025 against the rider of the respondent offender vehicle i.e., rider of the bike bearing No.KA-42-EE-9958. Upon the complaint, the police have registered FIR for the offence punishable under section 281, 106 of BNS. The Ex.P.3 is the Inquest report which clearly discloses that, deceased has died on 01.01.2025 in a Road Traffic Accident. Ex.P.2 is the spot mahazar which speaks about the occurrence of accident. Ex.P.4 is the PM report which reveals that, deceased has succumbed to the injuries in the said accident. Ex.P.5 is the IMV report. Ex.P.6 is the charge sheet which reveals that, police have investigated the matter and filed charge SCCH-4 9 MVC No.662/2025 sheet against the rider of the bike bearing No.KA-42-EE- 9958.
13. The petitioner was subjected to cross- examination by learned counsel for respondents. During the course of cross-examination of petitioner nothing was elicited from the mouth of petitioner, so as to disbelieve his version.
14. The Respondent No.2 has examined its official as RW.1 and got marked document at Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2. RW.1 has reiterated the contents of written statement filed by the respondent No.2 in his examination in chief. RW.1 was subjected to cross-examination by learned counsel for petitioner during the course of cross- examination of petitioner she had admitted that she has deposed her evidence on the basis of documents submitted by her. She does not have any personal knowledge about the case. The policy was in force as on the date of occurrence of the accident. The police have SCCH-4 10 MVC No.662/2025 filed charge sheet against the driver of our insured vehicle.
15. However, it is apparent on the face of records that the respondents have admitted the occurrence of accident and death of deceased has caused due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the bike bearing No.KA-42-EE-9958. In the absence of any cogent materials from the respondents in this regard. The only inference which has to be drawn is that, the accident in question was the result of the rash and negligent riding of rider of the bike bearing No.KA-42-EE-9958. Hence, I answer issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2:
16. The PW.4 in her evidence has deposed that, her deceased mother was doing agriculture and dairy farming work and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. The deceased was aged about 52 years and was hale and SCCH-4 11 MVC No.662/2025 healthy before the occurrence of accident. Petitioners being husband and daughters of the deceased, were wholly dependent on the income of the said deceased, she being a sole bread earning member in her family. She has further deposed that, she has spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards funeral and other expenses.
17. Petitioners have averred in the petition that, the petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioners No.2 to 4 are the daughters of the deceased. To substantiate the same, PW.1 has produced notarized copies of Aadhar cards along with originals of herself, petitioner No.1 to 3 and deceased. These documents reflects the relationship of deceased with the petitioners. The oral and documentary evidence led by PW.1 reflects that, petitioners are the LR's of deceased. Since, the respondents have not contested the said matter in the evidence led by PW.1. Then the evidence of PW.1 stands unshaken and the same is sufficient to show that SCCH-4 12 MVC No.662/2025 petitioners are the LR's of deceased. Accordingly, I answer issue No.2 In the affirmative.
ISSUE No.3:
18. Basically three facts lead to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death as per Sarla Verma Case i.e., (i) age of deceased,
(ii) Income of deceased and (iii) Number of dependents.
(i) Age of deceased: According to the petitioners the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 52 years. As per the aadhar card marked at Ex.P.8, wherein the date of the birth of the deceased mentioned as 12.08.1968, the accident was occurred on 01.01.2025. So, as on the date of the accident the deceased was aged 57 years.
(ii). Income of the deceased: According to the petitioners deceased Savithramma was doing Agriculture and Dairy farming work and earning a sum of SCCH-4 13 MVC No.662/2025 Rs.25,000/- per month. In this regard the petitioner has not produced any documents. Under the circumstances, this court has to consider the notional income to assess the loss of dependency.
19. In Legal Manager IFFCO Tokio GIC Ltd., V/s Srinivasa and Others, 2018 SCC online Kar 2862 Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "the court cannot ignore the notional income chart of the Lokadalath when there is no material evidence to prove the actual income. Hence, in the absence of material on record to prove the actual income of the deceased as on the date of occurrence of accident, the charge formulated by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority Bengaluru is to be followed to asses the notional income of deceased as on the date of accident".
20. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru while holding Lokadalath, has determined the notional income at Rs.17,000/- if the accident had occurred in the year-2025 and thus income of the SCCH-4 14 MVC No.662/2025 deceased Savithramma is to be considered at Rs.17,000/- per month.
21. Loss of dependency: The following points are to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at loss of dependency, they are
(i) addition/deduction to be made for arriving at the income.
(ii) Deductions to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased.
(iii) The multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
22. As per the decision reported in National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi and Other reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "if the deceased is below 40 years 40% of the established income of deceased towards future prospectus; an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years; an addition 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as necessary method of computation." SCCH-4 15 MVC No.662/2025 Applying the same formula to the case on hand it is clear that, the deceased is entitled for future prospects. In the present case the deceased is aged 57 years and therefore 10% of the established income of the deceased is assessed towards future prospects. Hence, the future prospects is determined as Rs.1,700/- (17,000 X 10/100 = Rs.1,700/-). Therefore the total income of the deceased is determined as Rs.18,700/- per month (17,000 + 1,700 = Rs.18,700/-).
23. Admittedly, petitioner No.1 to 4 are the dependents of deceased person. As per the the Sarla Verma V/s Delhi Transport Corporation and others reported in 2009 ACJ SC 1298 case, when there are 4 to 6 Dependents 1/4th of the income is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. As such 1/4th amount is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses i.e., Rs.4,675/-. When the said 1/4th SCCH-4 16 MVC No.662/2025 amount is deducted from monthly income of the deceased, then the balance amount shall be Rs.14,025/- (Rs.18,700 - Rs.4,675 = Rs.14,025/-). As per the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others V/s Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd., and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier to the age of the deceased is 9. Thus, total loss of income from the deceased comes to (Rs.14,025/- X 12 X 9 =Rs.15,14,700/-). Hence, Loss of dependency is determined as Rs.15,14,700/-.
24. Transportation, Funeral expenses, Loss of Estate, Loss of love and affection and Loss of Consortium:- In so far as the funeral and other expenses are concerned, as per the version of the petitioners they have spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. But they have not produced any documents to substantiate the said version. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National SCCH-4 17 MVC No.662/2025 Insurance Company Ltd., V/s Pranaya Sethi and other the Compensation under the heads of transportation, funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of love and affection and loss of consortium has to be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
25. Since, it is settled law in National Insurance Company Ltd., V/s Pranay Sethi and others case reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, that the dependents would be entitled for the transportation of dead body to an extent of Rs.15,000/- with an enhancement at the rate of 10% in every three years. Hence, petitioners are entitled for compensation under this head to the tune of Rs.16,500/- i.e., (15,000 X 10/100 =Rs.1,500/- + Rs.15,000/-).
Further, for funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- with an enhancement at the rate of 10% in every three years. Hence, petitioners are entitled for compensation under SCCH-4 18 MVC No.662/2025 this head to the tune of Rs.16,500/- i.e., (15,000 X 10/100 =Rs.1,500/- + Rs.15,000/-).
Like wise for loss of estate to the extent of Rs.15,000/- with an enhancement at the rate of 10% every three years. Hence, petitioners are entitled for compensation under this head to the tune of Rs.16,500/- i.e., (15,000 X 10/100 =Rs.1,500/- + Rs.15,000/-).
Similarly, for loss of love and affection to the extent of Rs.25,000/- with an enhancement at the rate of 10% every three years. Hence, petitioners are entitled for compensation under this head to the tune of Rs.27,500/- i.e., (25,000 X 10/100 =Rs.2,500/- + Rs.25,000/-).
Loss of consortium: it is pertinent to note that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi case has directed to award an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards consortium. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., V/s Nanu SCCH-4 19 MVC No.662/2025 Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 has held that, the term "consortium" is compendious of spousal, parental and filial consortium and directed to award amount in all three categories. Hence, in view of the said decisions this tribunal awards under the head of consortium as follows;
(i) Towards spousal consortium: the petitioner No.1 husband is entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/- with an enhancement at the ration of 10% in every three years. Hence, petitioner No.1 is entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/- (40,000 X 10/100 =Rs.4,000/- + Rs.40,000/-).
(ii) Towards parental consortium: Petitioner No.2 to 4 are the daughters of the deceased and have lost love and affection of the mother and hence, they are entitled for Rs.44,000/- each under this head (40,000 X 10/100 =Rs.4,000/- + Rs.40000/-).
SCCH-4 20 MVC No.662/2025
Hence, the petitioners are entitled for compensation under the following heads.
Sl. No. Particulars Amount
1. Loss of dependency with Rs. 15,14,700/-
future prospects
2. Transportation of dead body Rs. 16,500/-
3. Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/-
4. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/-
5. Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 27,500/-
6. Loss of Spousal and parental Rs. 1,76,000/-
consortium
7. Medical expenses -NIL-
Total Rs.17,67,700/-
Hence, the petitioners are entitled for total
compensation award amount of Rs.17,67,700/- which is just and proper.
26. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. Hence, the respondents No.1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The respondent No.2 being the insurer is bound to indemnify the respondent No.1. Hence, SCCH-4 21 MVC No.662/2025 respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to petitioners with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., Accordingly, I answer this issue partly in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.4:-
27. 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.17,67,700/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.,. from the date of petition till the realization from respondents.
The petitioners No.1 to 4 are entitled for the compensation at the ratio of 40:20:20:20.
The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount within 60 days from the date of this order.SCCH-4 22 MVC No.662/2025
Considering the quantum of amount awarded to petitioners No.1 to 4, it is ordered to release the entire amount in their favour.
Advocate fee is fixed at 1,500/-. Draw the award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 3rd day of February, 2026) (Gayathri S Kate) XVIII ADDL.JUDGE & ACJM Court of Small Causes Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for petitioners:
PW.1 Keerthi Y.R. List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR and complaint Ex.P2 True copy of Spot Mahazar along with Sketch Ex.P3 True copy of Inquest report with witness statement Ex.P4 True copy of PM report Ex.P5 True copy of IMV report Ex.P6 True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P7 Notarised copy of Aadhar card Ex.P8 Notarised copy of Aadhar card Ex.P9 Notarised copy of Aadhar card Ex.P10 Notarised copy of Aadhar card SCCH-4 23 MVC No.662/2025 Ex.P11 Notarised copy of Aadhar card Ex.P12 Notarized copy of pan card Ex.P13 Notarized copy of pan card Ex.P14 Notarized copy of pan card Ex.P15 Notarized copy of pan card List of witnesses examined for Respondents:
RW.1 : R.Roshini Ashwitha,
List of documents marked on behalf of the
Respondents:
Ex.R1 : Authorization letter
Ex.R2 : Insurance Policy
XVIII ADDL.JUDGE & ACJM
Court of Small Causes
Bengaluru.
Digitally
signed by
GAYATHRI S
GAYATHRI KATE
S KATE Date:
2026.02.11
10:42:04
+0530