Bangalore District Court
Chinnakka C Allias Chavla Chinnakka vs Masthan S on 2 February, 2026
SCCH-24 1 M.V.C.2361 of 2024
KABC020153392024
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU.
(SCCH-24)
Presided Over by Smt. Roopashri, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACJM,
MEMBER - MACT,
BENGALURU.
Dated:- This the 2nd day of February 2026
M.V.C. No.2361 OF 2024
Petitioner/s:
Smt. Chinnakka
@ Chavla Chinnakka,
Dead by her Lrs
1(a) Sri. C. Ramanaiah,
S/o. Late Venkatanna,
Aged about 45 years,
1(b) Sri. C. Ravindra,
S/o. Late Venkatanna
Aged about 33 years,
Both are residing at
No.4-118, Vangimalla Village,
Veeraballi Mandal, Kadapa Dist.
Andhra Pradesh-516268.
1(c) Smt. B. Ravanamma @
Bajawada Ravanamma
W/o Veerabhadraiah
Aged about 45 years,
SCCH-24 2 M.V.C.2361 of 2024
R/o No.12-27,
B Harijanawada
Veeraballe, Kadapa District,
Andhra Pradesh - 516268.
1(d) Smt. B. Chinnadevi
@ Bejawada Chinnadevi
W/o Reddiah,
Aged about 39 years,
R/o No.12-25,
Gurappanagaripalli,
B. Harijanawada
Veeraballe, Kadapa District,
Andhra Pradesh-516268.
(By Sri.T.V.Ramesh - Advocate)
V/s
Respondents:
1) Sri. S. Masthan,
S/o. S. Mahaboob Sab,
Major, R/o. No.4-78,
Old Masjid Street,
Pallavolu gadi Village,
Kalikiri Mandal,
Annamayya Dist.
Andra Pradesh - 517237.
2) The National Insurance
Company Ltd.,
Motor Claims HUB,
No.144, 2nd Floor,
Shubharam Complex,
M.G.Road, Bangalore - 01.
(R-1 Exparte)
R-2 -by Smt.R.Sharadamba -Advocate)
SCCH-24 3 M.V.C.2361 of 2024
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident.
2. That on 29.02.2024 at about 9.45 a.m. the petitioner as a pillion rider was traveling in the Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.AP-03-CK-7667 from Guvvalacheruvu village towards Rayachoti town, ridden by her son C. Ravindra and when they reached near Medarapalli Village, Ramapuram Mandal, Annamayya Dist., at that time the driver of Goods vehicle bearing Reg. No.AP-04-TX-4819 came from same direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's motor cycle from its rear side., result of which petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately the petitioner was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa, wherein admitted as an inpatient for two weeks.
3. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy. She was aged about 63 years. She was working as Agricultural Coolie and earning sum of SCCH-24 4 M.V.C.2361 of 2024 Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to the sudden death of deceased, petitioner has suffered pain and mental agony and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
4. In spite of service of notice, the respondent No.1 - the R.C. owner of Goods vehicle bearing Reg. No.AP-04-TX-4819 has remained absent. Hence he was placed ex-parte.
5. The respondent No.2 - the Insurer of Goods vehicle bearing Reg. No.AP-04-TX-4819 has filed written statement and admitted the coverage of insurance policy and the liability if any subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. The respondent No.2 has contended that this court has no jurisdiction to try this matter. The respondent No.2 has contended that the driver of the insured vehicle was not holding driving licence and that the alleged accident has occurred due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, who was going ahead without giving any signal, suddenly slow down the speed of the vehicle and also on the part of the deceased, who was not seated properly on the motorcycle. It was further contended that there was no negligence on the part of the insured vehicle and that there is no nexus between the injuries and death.
SCCH-24 5 M.V.C.2361 of 20246. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the accident occurred on 29-02-2024 at about 9-45 am., due to rash and negligent act of the driver of Goods vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-04-TX-4819 and later succumbed to the said injuries?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are entitled to the compensation amount claimed? If so from whom and to what extent?
3. What Order or Award?
7. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner was died. Hence his Legal representatives were brought on record as petitioners No.1 (a) and 1(b) vide order dated 09-07-2025 and petitioner no.1(c) and 1(d) vide order dated 16-12-2025.
8. The petitioner No.1 (b) examined himself as PW.1 and produced documents as per Exs.P1 to 10. The respondent no.2 has examined its Administrative Officer as RW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.
SCCH-24 6 M.V.C.2361 of 20249. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner No.1 (a) to 1(d) and respondent No.2 .
10. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : Partly in the affirmative, Issue No.2 : Partly in the affirmative, Issue No.3 : As per final order for the Following:-
REASONS
11. Issue No.1: In order to explain the actionable negligence of the driver of offending vehicle, the petitioner No.1(b) has filed his affidavit explaining the vivid picture of the accident that took place on 29.02.2024 at about 9.45 a.m. when the deceased as a pillion rider was traveling in the Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.AP-03-CK-7667 from Guvvalacheruvu village towards Rayachoti town, ridden by her son C. Ravindra and when they reached near Medarapalli Village, Ramapuram Mandal, Annamayya Dist., at that time the driver of Goods vehicle bearing Reg. No.AP-04-TX-4819 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) came from the same direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's motor cycle from its SCCH-24 7 M.V.C.2361 of 2024 rear side., result of which he fell down and sustained injuries.
12. In support of the contention, the petitioners have relied upon the documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to 7 which are the police records. The documents above referred makes out that on the basis of the complaint lodged by the son of the deceased by name Chavala Raveendra, case was registered against the driver of offending vehicle for the offence punishable under Section under section 337 of IPC and u/Sec.184 of MV Act.
13. It is relevant to state here that at the earlier instance the petition was filed by the injured herself . During the pendency of the petition, she breathed her last. Hence, her Lrs were brought on record as petitioner no.1(a) to 1(d).
14. The respondent no.2 has seriously disputed the nexus between the injuries sustained in the accident and the death of the deceased. Keeping the said point alive, coming to the contention taken by the petitioners as to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is concerned, it is not in dispute that at the time of accident the deceased as pillion rider was proceeding SCCH-24 8 M.V.C.2361 of 2024 in the motorcycle from Rayachoti town towards Guvvalacheruvu village. The offending vehicle was proceeding in the same direction from behind the motorcycle. The petitioners have not produced the spot mahazar for the reason best known to them. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that in Andra Pradesh, in accident cases, investigation officer is not drawing the spot mahazar. But this court is not accepting the said line of argument for the reason that in many number the claim petition filed before this court wherein the accident occurred at Andra Pradesh State, the Investigating Officer has filed spot mahazar. Further the criminal procedure court and BNSS is applicable even to the state of Andra Pradesh. Be that as it may, if the spot mahazar is perused, the spot of accident is on the extreme left side of the road touching to the footpath. The offending vehicle being a heavy vehicle, the driver of the said vehicle ought not to have drive the vehicle on the extreme left side of the road. By leaving at least 4 feet he had to drive the vehicle by facilitating the two wheeler to pass through the said road in a gap of 4 feet from the left edge of the tar road. Further when offending vehicle was coming from behind the motorcycle, the driver of the offending vehicle had to maintain minimum distance. Had he maintained minimum distance between the two vehicles this SCCH-24 9 M.V.C.2361 of 2024 accident could have been avoided. It is because the accident in question has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, complaint was lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle. After investigation charge sheet was filed against him. The respondent no.1 who is the owner of the offending vehicle has remained exparte. Though the respondent no.2 has taken the contention that accident in question has occurred due to the negligent act on the part of the rider of the motorcycle of his act of suddenly slow down the vehicle and took the vehicle towards the left side of the road, but in order to substantiate the said defence they have not led the evidence of the driver of offending vehicle who is the competent person to speak on the said fact. Hence, without there being any rebuttal evidence there is no reason the accept the defence taken by the respondent no.2. Therefore, it can be said that rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is the sole cause for the accident.
15. So far as the dispute raised by the respondent no.2 regarding the nexus between the injuries and death of the deceased is concerned, it is vehemently argued by the Learned counsel for respondent no.2 that the deceased had sustained only simple injuries as evident from the wound certificate and that she has taken only SCCH-24 10 M.V.C.2361 of 2024 conservative treatment and she has not undergone any surgery and that the petitioners have not examined the medical officer who has given treatment to the deceased and after the discharge from the hospital on 14-03-2024 the deceased had not taken any further treatment or follow up treatment and that after the death of the deceased, her body was not subjected to post mortem, hence there is no reason to believe that death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained in the accident and there is no evidence as to the cause for the death under such circumstances it has to be held that there is no nexus between the injuries sustained in the accident and the death.
16. Per contra, it was vehemently argued by the Learned counsel for petitioners that since deceased was aged lady, if surgery is conducted there was no chances of her survival, hence the doctor reluctant to conduct surgery and after the death of deceased, because of lack of knowledge they did not subject the body to the post mortem.
17. By disputing the nexus between the injuries and death, the Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has relied upon judgment rendered in MFA No. 9959/2007 (MV) between K.S.R.T.C vs., Basavana Gowda SCCH-24 11 M.V.C.2361 of 2024 MFA No.359/2013 (MV) between M Narayanappa since dead Rept., by Ramakka (Dead by his Lrs., Smt.Ramakka and N.Veeranna) Vs. M/s Shivashakthi Bio Planetic Ltd., and another MFA No.31235/2010 between Padmavathi & Ors., Vs. Rajesh Nangappa Pujari
18. This court has gone through the judgments cited by the Learned counsel for respondent no.2. In the said cases referred above the injuries sustained by the victim was not of serious nature and no long treatment has been taken, the dead body was not subjected to post mortem examination so as to know the cause of death and no document to prove that injured was under
treatment till his/her death. Under such circumstances in all the said cases it was held that petitioners have not established the nexus between the injuries and death of the victim.
19. In the instance case, as borne out from the MLC and wound certificate, the deceased had sustained simple injuries. Admittedly she has taken conservative treatment. Though the petitioners have blamed the treated doctor stating that treated doctor referred to conduct surgery because of the age of the deceased, but if Ex.P6 ie., discharge summary is perused, wherein it is noted that patient was advised for surgery, but patient SCCH-24 12 M.V.C.2361 of 2024 attender not given consent for surgery and patient and attenders not willing for surgery and injured was discharged at their request. As per the discharge summary the deceased had sustained blunt injury on chest, multiple rib fracture on both sides and other injuries. The deceased was aged about 63 years. Hence, there is no reason to believe that because of the age oldness of the deceased, the surgery was not conducted. Age of 63 is not a big age, so as to say that if surgery is conducted her BP level will be slow down and she will not give response to the treatment. Further though the petitioners have stated that after the discharge from the hospital on 14-03-2024 from Government Hospital, Kadappa, the injured has taken further treatment again at Government Hospital, Kadappa for a period of one week and thereafter at Thirumal Hospital but no document to that effect has been produced. It is nowhere the case of the petitioners that till the death of injured she was under continuance treatment. The petitioners have not examined the treated doctor to prove before the court that the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased would be the cause for her death. Further the body of the deceased was not subjected to post mortem. As observed supra, the injured was died on 08-05-2024. The charge sheet was filed on 07-06-2024. If really death of the deceased was SCCH-24 13 M.V.C.2361 of 2024 due to the accidental injuries, the petitioners could have reported the death to the jurisdictional police station where complaint was lodged and if death was reported the investigating officer would have altered the Section from 337 IPC to Sec. 304-A of IPC.
20. Hence, considering the above set facts this court is of the opinion that deceased was died not due to the accidental injuries sustained by her, but because of some other reason and there is no supportive evidence to prove the direct nexus between the death and injuries sustained in the accident. But as observed supra, the deceased had sustained injuries due to the accident. Hence, issue no.1 is answered in Partly Affirmative.
21. Issue no 2: The petitioners No.1(a) to 1(d) are the children of the deceased. The petitioners have filed the petition claiming compensation for the death caused due to the accidental injuries. But this court after going through the records has arrived at the firm conclusion that, death of the deceased was not due to the accidental injuries sustained by her but, due to some other reason and also due to the clear negligence on the part of the deceased and her family members.
SCCH-24 14 M.V.C.2361 of 202422. The respondent no.2 has seriously disputed the maintainability of the petition continued by the Lrs of the deceased and submitted that the deceased being an aged lady of the age of 63 years and petitioners No.1(a) to 1(d) being the major married sons and daughters of the deceased are not the dependents of the deceased, hence there is no loss of dependency and if really the petitioners no.1(a) to (d) are the dependents of the deceased they have to prove the same before the court. The learned counsel for respondent no.2 at this juncture has referred the judgment rendered in Spl. Leave petition 22265/22266 of 2018 between Deep Shikha and another V/s National Ins. Co. Ltd., and others decided on 13-5-2025 rendered by the Division Bench wherein it was observed that, "A married daughter may be considered as legal representative as per Manjuri Bera case 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."
23. In SLP.(Civil) No.7805/2022 between New India Assurance Co. Ltd., V/s Anand Pal and others, by referring the facts of the said case it was observed that "The siblings of the victim were older and were married with their own respective families. In these circumstances, they being dependent on the victim's earnings is unlikely SCCH-24 15 M.V.C.2361 of 2024 particularly when the victim resided separately."
24. Per contra the learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that the petitioner no.1(a) to 1 (d) being the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled for compensation and the petition continued by the Lrs. of deceased is maintainable. In support of the argument the learned counsel has referred the judgment reported in 1987 ACJ 561 (SC) between Gujarath State Road Transport corporation V/s Ramanbhai Prabathbhai and another wherein it was observed that, "The legal representatives need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child. The claim tribunal is authorized to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid".
25. In 2007 (10) SCC 643 Smt. Majuri bera V/s Oriental Ins. Co. ltd., and others. In the said case the question raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that, Whether any compensation is payable where the claim is held by the legal representative of the deceased who was not actual dependent on him. It was held that "
the claimant if is the legal representative will be entitled to compensation". In the said case reference was made of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court wherein, the SCCH-24 16 M.V.C.2361 of 2024 Hon'ble High Court has made distinction between right to apply for compensation and entitlement to compensation and held that even a married daughter is a legal representative and she is entitled to compensation.
26. In 2020 ACJ 759 SC between National Ins. Co. Ltd., V/s Birender and others, it was held that married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives can claim compensation for death of their mother and tribunal is duty bound to consider their claim application irrespective of the fact that they were fully dependent on the deceased or not.
27. The learned counsel in further has referred the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4800/2021 between Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., V/s Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon (deceased) through his legal representative Narinder Kahlon Gosakan and another. In the said case the deceased had taken prolonged treatment for 6 months and the extent of disability suffered by him was assessed as 100%. Because of the disability suffered by the injured / deceased he had to resign the job. In the said case the tribunal on technicalities rejected the claim for salary medical expenses and percentage of disability and SCCH-24 17 M.V.C.2361 of 2024 awarded nominal compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, while the claim for personal injuries may not have survived after the death of injures unrelated to the accident or injuries but, the claims for loss of estate caused was available and could be pursue by the legal representative of the deceased.
28. In Civil Appeal No.2959/2024 between Dhannalal @ Dhanraj (dead by Lrs.,) V/s Nasir Khan and others, it was held that, "the right to claim compensation for the injuries caused in a motor vehicle accident survives on the legal representatives of the injures even if the injured dies in the course of the proceedings for the reasons not relatable to or having any nexus with the injuries sustained". In the said case loss of income was assessed. In the said case also the claimant was rendered 100% disabled by reason of the accident and during the pendency of the appeal he died.
29. From the observations made in the aforesaid judgments it can be said that, the claim petition filed by the children of the deceased is maintainable.
30. Keeping in mind the observation made in the aforesaid judgment, coming to the case in hand, the deceased had sustained bodily injuries as the impact of SCCH-24 18 M.V.C.2361 of 2024 accident. However the compensation under the head pain and sufferings being personal in nature held to be un sustainable and legal heir is not entitled to claim compensation for the injuries sustained by the deceased petitioner.
31. It is the contention of the petitioners that the deceased was doing agricultural coolie and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. But, the petitioners have not produced any document to prove the income of the deceased. Hence this court considering the age of the deceased, the year of accident and place of residence considers the income of the deceased as Rs.16,500/- p.m.
32. If the Aadhar card of the deceased/petitioner at Ex.P8 is perused wherein the year of birth of deceased was mentioned as 1961. If the age of the deceased mentioned in the Aadhar card is taken into consideration then the age of the deceased as on the date of accident was 63 years. Hence, the age of the petitioner/deceased as on the date of accident is considered as 63 years.
33. The deceased had sustained injuries and she was in the hospital for quite long period from 29-02- 2024 to 14-03-2024 for a period of nearly 15 days.
SCCH-24 19 M.V.C.2361 of 2024Hence the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased it is reasonable to hold that period of 03 months as complete laid down period. Hence taking into consideration the avocation of the deceased and loss of income caused from the said avocation this court takes the loss of income during the laid down period as Rs.16,500/- p.m. for 3 months. Hence petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.49,500/- (16,500X3) towards loss of income during the laid down period .
34. Further for 15 days of hospitalization requires an attendant, was traveled to hospital for treatment, the deceased had taken nourishment till the date of her death. Therefore all together incidental expenses is assessed at Rs.60,000/-. In the present case, the petitioners are not entitled for compensation under any other heads for the reasons that it is no where the case of the petitioners that they were depending on the income of the deceased for their livelihood. Thus petitioner No.1(a) to 1(d) in all are entitled for compensation under the following heads :
Sl. Under the Heads Amount
No. (in Rupees )
1. Loss of income during 49,500-00
the laid down period
SCCH-24 20 M.V.C.2361 of 2024
2. Incidental expenses 60,000-00
Total 1,09,500-00
Thus, the petitioner No.1(a) to 1(d) are entitled to Rs.1,09,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Nine Thousand and Five Hundred only) and it is just and adequate compensation under the facts and circumstances of the case.
35. As regarding liability is concerned, there is no dispute that offending vehicle was insured with 2nd respondent and policy was in force as on the date of accident. Further the driver of the offending vehicle had driving license to drive the offending vehicle. Hence it can be said that all the documents pertaining to the vehicle in question was valid and in force as on the date of accident. Hence by fastening liability on the respondent no 2 this court directs the respondent no.2 to pay compensation to the petitioner No.1(a) to 1(d) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of accident till the date of payment of entire amount. Accordingly Issue No.2 is answered.
36. Issue No.3:- In the light of findings given on Issue No.1 and 2, my finding on this issue is as per the following final order.
SCCH-24 21 M.V.C.2361 of 2024
ORDER
The claim petition filed by the
petitioner No.1(a) to 1(d) is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitioner No.1(a) to 1(d) are
entitled for total compensation of
Rs.1,09,500/- + cost of Rs.2000/-
imposed vide order on IA No.V & VI. In
the petitioner No.1(a) to 1(d) are
entitled for sum of Rs.1,11,500/-
(Rupees One Lakh Eleven Thousand
Five Hundred only)
A Sum of Rs.1,09,500/- shall also carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the amount with interest within 2 months from the date of award.
Out of the compensation amount, Petitioner No.1 (a) to 1(d) are entitled for Rs.27,875/- each.
Entire compensation amount awarded in favour of petitioner No.1(a) to 1(d) shall be released to petitioners SCCH-24 22 M.V.C.2361 of 2024 through E-payment on proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 2nd day of February 2026) (ROOPASHRI) XXII Addl. SCJ & ACJM Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PETITIONER:
PW.1 Sri. C.Ravindra WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENTS: -
RW.1 Sri. Himendra Kartantik DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PETITIONER:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR with complaint
Ex.P1(a) Translated copy of complaint
Ex.P2 True copy of Sketch
Ex.P3 True copy of Accident Register
SCCH-24 23 M.V.C.2361 of 2024
Ex.P4 True copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P5 True copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P6 True copy of Discharge summary
Ex.P7 True copy of treatment sheet
Ex.P8 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of deceased
and petitioners (compared with original verified and returned) Ex.P9 Death certificate of original petitioner (compared with original verified and returned) Ex.P10 True copy of Case Sheet DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R1 Authorization Letter
Ex.R2 Insurance Policy
XXII Addl. SCJ & ACJM
Bengaluru.
ROOPASHRI
Digitally signed
by ROOPASHRI
Date:
2026.02.02
15:34:05 +0530