Bangalore District Court
Jayalakshmi.G vs Ravi Chandra B.R. Rep., By His Lrs., Of ... on 6 February, 2026
KABC020331932022
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.6157/2022
Dated this 6th day of February, 2026
Petitioners: 1. Jayalakshmi G. W/o Late G. Vijay Kumar,
Aged about 45 years,
2. Nithin Kumar V. S/o Late G. Vijay Kumar,
Aged about 23 years,
Petitioners No.1 and 2 are
R/at No.520, Rakshavarsha Nilaya,
3rd Main, Havnur Extention,
Near Soundraya College,
Hesaragatta Main Road, Nagasandra,
Bengaluru - 560 073.
(Sri Sridhara T., Advocate)
V/s
Respondents: 1. Ravi Chandra B.R.,
Rep. by his LR's of deceased
2 MVC No.6157/2022
1(a). Geetha W/o Late Ravi Chandra B.R.,
Aged about 37 years,
1(b). Chanmyachandra S/o Late Ravi
Chandra B.R.,
Aged about 4 years,
1(c). Keshavachandra S/o Late Ravi
Chandra B.R.,
Aged about 3 years,
Petitioner No.1(b) and 1(c) are minor
represented by their mother.
Petitioner No.1(a) to 1(c) are
R/at Hadadi Village,
Davanagere Taluk and District.
And also :
#21/A, 8th C Main, Muneshwara Layout,
Shreya Hospital Road, Kengeri,
Bengaluru.
(Sri A.S. Swamy, Advocate)
2. The Manager,
ICICI Lombard General Ins. Co. Ltd.,
S-5, 3rd Floor, Opp: Medinova Center,
Infentry Road, Shivaji Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
(Sri Manoj Kumar M.R., Advocate)
3. Raju Jagtap S/o Shrimant,
Major by age,
3 MVC No.6157/2022
A/P118, Gandhi Nagar,
No.5, Akkalkot Road, Solapur,
Maharastra - 413 005.
(Owner of Eicher MGV bearing
No.MH-19-Z-4190)
(Ex-parte)
4. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory
T.P. Hub, Bengaluru, Krishi Bhavan,
6th Floor, Hudson Circle, Nrupathunga
Road, Bengaluru - 560 001.
(Insurer of Eicher MGV bearing
No.MH-19-Z-4190,
Policy bearing
No.1612003121P103400543,
validity period from 13-07-2021 to 12-
07-2022)
(Sri K.R. Shivananda, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,00,000/- from the respondents, on account of death of G. Vijay Kumara, who is husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2, in a road traffic accident. 4 MVC No.6157/2022
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 15-03-2022 at about 9.10 p.m., the deceased G. Vijay Kumar along with his friend owner cum driver of car and his family were traveling in a car bearing No.KA-50-M- 9362, on Bengaluru-Chitradurga NH-4 road, infront of Annapurneshwari Daba, near Hiriyur Taluk, Imangala Village. At that time, the driver of said car was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner, without observing traffic rules. While so proceeding, all of sudden a pig entered into middle of the road. He dashed the car to the pig and then to rare side of the lorry bearing No.MH-19-Z-4190 and to the road divider. Due to said impact, the deceased has fell down from the car and sustained grievous injuries on his head, chest and all over the body and died on the spot. Earlier to the accident the deceased was working as Assistant Manager in BOSCH Limited and was earning a sum of Rs.14,64,091.58/- per annum. He was contributing his entire earnings to his family. Due to untimely death of a sole 5 MVC No.6157/2022 bread earner, the petitioners are struggling for their livelihood. The Imangala Police have registered the case against the driver of the said car for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. 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 the compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition and award compensation of Rs.5,00,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the respondents No.1, 2 and 4 have appeared through their counsel and filed their separate written statements. Whereas, the respondent No.3 did not choose to appear and remained absent. Hence, the respondent No.3 is placed as ex-parte.
6 MVC No.6157/2022
4. The respondent No.1 in her written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. She has contended that, the owner cum driver of the car bearing Reg. No.KA-50-M-9362 was not driving the same in rash and negligent manner. She has denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased. Further it is contended that, the car bearing Reg. No.KA-50-M-9362 was duly insured with the respondent No.2 i.e. the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., vide policy bearing No.MAJEDKD1500271263 and it was valid from 01-01-2022 to 31-12-2022. As on the date of alleged accident the insurance policy was in force, the driver of said vehicle was holding valid driving licence as on the date of alleged accident. Further it is contended that, the compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. For the above denials and contentions, she has prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Whereas, the respondent No.2 in its written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has 7 MVC No.6157/2022 contended that, the accident has occurred due to carelessness of driver of Eicher MGV bearing No.MH-19-Z- 4190, who had in fact stationed the vehicle on the NH-4 road, without any signal. The deceased being the occupant of insured Ritz car bearing No.KA-50-M-9362 and other occupants of the insured car while so proceeding, more than the seating capacity, had engaged the driver of insured car in deep conversation, due to which the driver of car lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the rear side of the stationed Eicher MGV vehicle. Further it is contended that, the driver of the insured Ritz car did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the said car and thus had so acted in contravention of terms and conditions of the policy as well as the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It has admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of Maruti Ritz car bearing No.KA-50-M-9362, vide policy bearing No.3001/236078437/00/000 and it was valid for the period from 01-01-2022 to 31-12-2022. Further it is contended that, 8 MVC No.6157/2022 the accident has occurred on account of actionable negligence of two drivers namely the driver of the car bearing No.KA-50-M-9362 and the driver of the Eicher MGV bearing No.MH-19-Z-4190, which were plying on the same road. As such, both the vehicles involved in the accident have to be held guilty of composite negligence. It seeks protection under Section 147 and 149 of Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the petition is bad for non-compliance of provision under Section 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act. It has denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased. Further, it has sought for permission to contest the case even on behalf of respondent No.1, under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. For the above denials and contentions, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. The respondent No.4 in its written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has contended that, the petition is bad for non-compliance of 9 MVC No.6157/2022 provision under Sections 134(c) and 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act. It has admitted the issuance of insurance policy bearing No.1612003121P103400543 in favour of respondent No.3, in respect of lorry bearing No.MH-19-Z-4190 and its validity as on the date of accident. Further it is contended that, the driver of the said lorry was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the same and the said lorry had no permit and fitness certificate at the time of accident and the owner of the said vehicle has knowingly allowed the person who did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the same and there is a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy by the respondent No.3. Hence, it is not liable to indemnify the insured as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Further it is contended that, the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing No.KA-50-M-0362 and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of lorry bearing No.MH-19-Z-4190. The Imangala police have filed abated 10 MVC No.6157/2022 charge-sheet against the driver of car and it clearly goes to show that, the car driver himself is rash and negligent and without following traffic rules and regulations at high speed, drive his car and caused for the alleged accident. It has denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased. Further, it has sought for permission to contest the case even on behalf of respondent No.3, under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. For the above denials and contentions, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, the deceased G. Vijay Kumar S/o Gurappa, has succumbed to the injuries sustained in vehicular accident, alleged to have been occurred on 15-03-2022, at about 9:10 p.m., due to the rash and 11 MVC No.6157/2022 negligent driving of the driver of the Car bearing registration No.KA-50-M-
9362 ?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?
8. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 has got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked total 29 documents as Ex.P.1 to 29. Further, they have got examined two more witnesses namely Gopalakrishna Joshi M., and Siddesh Reddy as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively. On the other hand, the respondents No.1, 2 and 4 have not adduced any evidence on their behalf.
9. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the entire material placed on record.
10. My findings on the above issues are as under: 12 MVC No.6157/2022
Issue No.1: Affirmative Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
11. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioners that, on 15-03-2022 at about 9.10 p.m., the deceased G. Vijay Kumar along with his friend owner cum driver of car and his family were traveling in a car bearing No.KA-50-M-9362, on Bengaluru-Chitradurga NH-4 road, infront of Annapurneshwari Daba, near Hiriyur Taluk, Imangala Village. At that time, the driver of said car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and dashed to the pig and then to rare side of the lorry bearing No.MH-19-Z-4190 and to the road divider. Due to said impact, the deceased has fell down from the car and sustained grievous injuries on his head, chest and all over the body and died on the spot. Further it is contended that, 13 MVC No.6157/2022 earlier to the accident the deceased was working as Assistant Manager in BOSCH Limited and was earning a sum of Rs.14,64,091.58/- 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. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 has got examined herself as P.W.1 by filing examination-in-chief affidavit, wherein she has reiterated the entire averments made in the petition. Further, in support of their oral evidence, the petitioners have got marked total 29 documents as Ex.P.1 to 29. Out of the said documents, Ex.P.1 is true copy of first information statement, Ex.P.2 is true copy of F.I.R., Ex.P.3 is true copy of charge-sheet, Ex.P.4 is true copy of post-mortem report, Ex.P.5 is true copy of Motor Vehicles Accident Report, Ex.P.6 is certified copy of death certificate, Ex.P.7 is true copy of salary certificate, Ex.P.8 & 9 are true copy of bank passbooks, Ex.P.10 and 11 14 MVC No.6157/2022 are notarized copy of Aadhar cards of Petitioners No.1 and 2, Ex.P.12 is notarized copy of birth certificate of petitioner No.2, Ex.P.13 is notarized copy of marriage certificate, Ex.P.14 is notarized copy of genealogy tree, Ex.P.15 is notarized copy of Identity card, Ex.P.16 is notarized copy of General Power of Attorney, Ex.P.17 is certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, Ex.P.18 and 19 are salary slips, Ex.P.20 is annual increment letter, Ex.P.21 is appointment letter temporary, Ex.P.22 is appointment letter permanent, Ex.P.23 is notarized copy of Aadhar card of the deceased, Ex.P.24 is notarized copy of Election Identity card of the deceased, Ex.P.25 and 26 are notarized copy of bank pass books of the petitioner and deceased, Ex.P.27 is notarized copy of Aadhar card, Ex.P.28 is GST bill and Ex.P.29 is Nisarga Hotel cash bill.
13. Further, the petitioners have examined one more witness by name Siddesh Reddy S/o Sudhakar Reddy as P.W.3, who is said to be the eye-witness to the accident in 15 MVC No.6157/2022 question. The P.W.3 has deposed in consonance with the evidence of P.W.1. He has clearly deposed that, he is running hotel business in the name of "Nisarga Dabha" in Aimangala, Hiriyur-Chitradurga National Highway for many years. On 15-03-2022 at about 9.10 p.m., the driver of car bearing Reg. No.Ka-50-M-9362 was riding the same in a rash and negligent manner, without following traffic rules and regulations and was driving over speed on National Highway Road at Hiriyur - Chitradurga, near his Daba. At that time, all of sudden pig entered the highway road and the driver of said car dashed to the pig, lost control over his vehicle and dashed to the back side of Lorry bearing No.MH-19-Z-4190, which was parked on left side of mud road of national highway. Further he has deposed that, in the said horrible accident many people have lost their life and he is the eye- witness to said accident. Immediately after the accident, he phone called to the police and he infromed them about said accident. Thereafter, he called the Ambulance and shifted 16 MVC No.6157/2022 the injured and death persons to Government Hospital at Hiriyur and District Government Hospital, at Chitradurga. Thereafter, he has lodged complaint against the driver of said offending car bearing No. KA-50-M-9362 namely Ravichandra, before the Aimangala Police and based on his information the police have registered the FIR and conducted spot Mahazer in his presence and have filed charge-sheet against the respondents herein.
14. On meticulously going through the police documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 5, prima-facia it reveals that, the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-50-M-9362 and dashed against the pig and then dashed behind the Eicher lorry bearing No.MH-19-Z-4190 and then dashed against the road divider. Due to said impact the deceased G. Vijay Kumar has sustained grievous injuries all over the body and died on the spot. The 17 MVC No.6157/2022 investigation officer in his final report/charge-sheet, which is marked as Ex.P.3, has clearly stated that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-50-M-9362 and dashed against the pig and then dashed behind the Eicher lorry bearing No.MH-19-Z-4190 and then dashed against the road divider.
15. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that, in the present case, the date, time and place of accident, involvement of car bearing Reg. No.KA-50-M-9362 in the said accident, the 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 respondent No.1 & 2 have specifically denied the above averred facts and circumstances of the accident and taken specific defence that, the alleged accident has occurred due to carelessness of driver of Eicher lorry bearing No.MH-19-Z-4190, who had in fact stationed the vehicle on the NH-4 road, without any 18 MVC No.6157/2022 parking indicator and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of car bearing Reg. No.KA-50-M-9362. Further it is contended that, the deceased being the occupant of car bearing No.KA-50-M-9362 and other occupants of the said car, had engaged their driver in deep conversation and due to which the driver of car has lost control over his vehicle and dashed against the rear side of the stationed Eicher lorry. But, the respondents have failed to establish the said contentions. They have neither adduced any evidence, nor they have produced any document to show that, the said accident has taken place due to negligently parking of Eicher lorry bearing No.MH-19-Z-4190 on the road by its driver and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of car bearing Reg. No.KA-50-M-9362. Even the respondents have not stepped into witness box to depose the above contentions on oath. On the other hand, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner clearly establishes that, the said accident has taken place 19 MVC No.6157/2022 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-50-M-9362 and dashing the same to the lorry bearing No.MH-19-Z-4190, who was parked on the left side of the road. Though, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has 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 negligence of the driver of Eicher lorry bearing Reg. No.MH- 19-Z-4190 or there was any contributory negligence on his part in the cause of accident.
16. Further it is pertinent to note, as per Ex.P.5 Motor Vehicle Accident report, the said accident is not caused due to any mechanical defects in the vehicles involved in the accident. When the accident has not taken place due to any mechanical defects in the vehicles involved in the accident and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of Eicher lorry bearing Reg. No.MH-19-Z-4190, then in the 20 MVC No.6157/2022 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 Ex.P.3 final report/charge- sheet has clearly stated that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-50-M-9362 and dashing the same to the pig and then to stationed lorry bearing No.MH-19-Z-4190 and the deceased has succumbed to fatal injuries sustained in the said accident. Admittedly, the said final report/charge-sheet has not been challenged by the driver or the owner of offending vehicle. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the final report filed by the investigation officer and other police records, with regard to date, time and place of accident, involvement of the offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-50-M- 9362 in the said accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle and injuries caused to deceased 21 MVC No.6157/2022 G. Vijay Kumar in the said accident and the cause of his death.
17. Further, the Ex.P.4 Post-mortem report, clearly speaks that, the deceased G. Vijay Kumar has died due to cardiopulmonary arrest, head injury and secondary haemorrhage, due to the road traffic accident. There is absolutely no contrary or rebuttal evidence on record, the disbelieve the contents of said 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 car bearing Reg. No.KA-50-M-9362 and cause of death of deceased G. Vijay Kumar.
18. Further, it is well settled principle of law that, in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as required to be done in a 22 MVC No.6157/2022 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."
19. 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."
20. 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 successfully proved through cogent and corroborative 23 MVC No.6157/2022 evidence that, the deceased G. Vijay Kumar has succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, occurred on 15-03-2022 at about 9:10 p.m., on NH-4 Bengaluru- Chitradurga road, near Annapurneshwari Dhaba, Imangala Village, Hiriyur Taluk, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Car bearing Reg. No.KA-50-M-9362. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in Affirmative.
21. Issue No.2: While answering the above issue, for the reasons stated therein, this Court has already held that, the petitioners have successfully proved through cogent and corroborative evidence that, the accident is caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-50-M-9362 and deceased G. Vijay Kumar has sustained grievous injuries in the said accident and has succumbed to said injuries. Now the petitioners are required to establish that, they are the legal representatives of the deceased. In this regard, they have produced their respective Aadhar cards, birth certificate of petitioner No.2, 24 MVC No.6157/2022 marriage certificate, geneology tree and Aadhar card of deceased, which are marked as Ex.P.10 to 14 and 23. The said documents clearly goes to show that, the petitioner No.1 is wife and petitioner No.2 is son of deceased G. Vijay Kumar. On the other hand, the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased G. Vijay Kumar is not specifically denied by the respondent No.2 in the case and even there is no contrary or rebuttal evidence placed on record with respect to same. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the above documents produced by the petitioners and hold that, the petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased G. Vijay Kumar.
22. 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 25 MVC No.6157/2022 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."
23. 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 26 MVC No.6157/2022 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.
24. 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 27 MVC No.6157/2022 order to calculate the loss of dependency, the first step is to determine the age and income of the deceased.
25. Age and income of the deceased: The petitioners have averred that, the age of deceased as on the date of accident was 44 years. To substantiate this point, the petitioners have produced the Aadhar card of deceased G. Vijay Kumar, which is marked as Ex.P.23, wherein the date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 08-01-1977. Admittedly, the accident has occurred on 15-03-2022. This clearly goes to show that, as on the date of accident the age of the deceased was 45 years. It is averred in the petition that, as on the date of accident the deceased was hale and healthy and was working as Assistant Manager in BOSCH Limited and was earning a sum of Rs.14,64,091.58/- per annum. To substantiate the same, they have produced salary certificate, salary slips, annual increment letter, appointment letter and bank passbook of the deceased, which are marked as Ex.P.7, 18 to 22, 25 and 26. Further, 28 MVC No.6157/2022 they have also examined the authorised person/Senior General Manager-Human Resources of Bosch Limited Company, Bidadi, as P.W.2, to prove the avocation and income of the deceased. The P.W.2 has clearly deposed in his evidence that, the deceased G. Vijay Kumar was permanent employee of their company for nearly 25 years and at the time of his death, he was working as Deputy Manager in their company and he was drawing salary of Rs.16,15,538/- per annum. Further, as per the Ex.P.7, 18 and 19 salary slips, for the month of February-2022, the gross salary of the deceased is Rs.1,31,584/- per month. After deducting professional tax of Rs.200/- and income tax of Rs.21,261/-, the net salary of the deceased will be Rs.1,10,123/- per month. Therefore, the income of the deceased, as on the date of accident, is held at Rs.13,21,476/- per annum.
26. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s 29 MVC No.6157/2022 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 45 years and was not a permanent employee, the future prospects would be 25% of his income, which comes to Rs.3,30,369/-. Therefore, the future prospects of the deceased is held as Rs.3,30,369/-. If this income is added to the notional income, then it comes to Rs.16,51,845/-.
27. The deduction of personal expenses and calculating the multiplier: The family of the deceased consist of 2 persons i.e., petitioners No.1 and 2. The total number of dependents of the deceased are two. Therefore, deduction towards the personal expenses of deceased is taken as 1/3rd of the total income, which comes to Rs.5,50,615/-. After deducting 1/3rd out of total income, towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the annual income of the deceased is held as Rs.11,01,230/-. 30 MVC No.6157/2022
28. As on the date of death, the age of the deceased was 45 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 case is taken as 14. Accordingly, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency is held as Rs.11,01,230/- x 14 = Rs.1,54,17,220/-.
29. Compensation under conventional heads: In the present case, admittedly the petitioner No.1 is wife and petitioner No.2 is son of deceased G. Vijay Kumar. Hence, the petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled for compensation under the head of spousal and parental 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:
31 MVC No.6157/2022
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 enhanced by 20%, the loss of estate comes to Rs.18,000/-, the loss of spousal and parental consortium comes to Rs.48,000/- each to petitioners No.1 and 2 and funeral expenses comes to Rs.18,000/-.
30. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for compensation under different heads as follows :
Sl. Head of
Amount/Rs
No. Compensation
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 1,54,17,220-00
2. Loss of spousal and Rs. 96,000-00
parental consortium
3. Loss of estate Rs. 18,000-00
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000-00
Total Rs. 1,55,49,220-00
32 MVC No.6157/2022
Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation of Rs.1,55,49,220/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petition till its realization.
31. Liability: Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending Car bearing No.KA-50-M-9362. The insurance policy bearing No.3001/236078437/00/000, issued by the respondent No.2, in favour of respondent No.1, in respect of offending Car bearing No.KA-50-M-9362 was valid from 01-01-2022 to 31-12-2022. As such, the said policy was valid as on the date of accident i.e. 15-03-2022. There is no evidence on record to show that, there is any breach of terms and conditions of the said policy by the insured/respondent No.1. Further, the evidence placed on record by the petitioners clearly establishes that, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Car bearing No.KA-50-M-9362 the accident in question has taken place and the deceased G. Vijay Kumar has succumbed to grievous 33 MVC No.6157/2022 injuries sustained in the said accident. In such circumstances, the respondent No.1 being the owner of said vehicle is vicariously liable to compensate for the damage caused by the usage of said vehicle. The respondent No.2 being the insurer of the vehicle has to indemnify the respondent No.1. Therefore, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. However, the primary liability is on the respondent No.2 to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, for the above stated reasons, holding that, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,55,49,220/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petition till its realization, from the respondent No.2, I answer Issue No.2 in Partly Affirmative.
32. Issue No.3: In view of the above findings, I proceed to pass the following order:
34 MVC No.6157/2022
ORDER The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.1,55,49,220/- (Rupees one crore fifty five lakh forty nine thousand two hundred and twenty only), with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above compensation amount to the petitioners. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fastened on respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the said amount within two months from the date of this order.
The above compensation amount is apportioned as follows:
Petitioner No.1 - Wife - 50% Petitioner No.2 - Son - 50% 35 MVC No.6157/2022 Out of total compensation amount awarded in favour of petitioners No.1 and 2, 40% 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 60% amount with proportionate interest shall be released in their favour, through e-payment on proper identification and verification.
The petition against respondents No.3 and 4 is hereby dismissed.
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 6 th day of January, 2026) (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.36 MVC No.6157/2022
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners P.W.1: Jayalakshmi G. W/o Late G. Vijay Kumar P.W.2: Gopalakrishna Joshi M. S/o Thirumaleshwara Bhat P.W.3: Siddesh Reddy S/o Sudhakar Reddy Documents marked on behalf of petitioners Ex.P.1: True copy of First Information Statement Ex.P.2: True copy of F.I.R.
Ex.P.3: True copy of Charge-sheet
Ex.P.4: True copy of Post-mortem Report
Ex.P.5: True copy of M.V.A. Report
Ex.P.6: Certified copy of Death Certificate
Ex.P.7: True copy of Salary Certificate
Ex.P.8: True copy of Bank Passbook of Jayalakshmi
Ex.P.9: True copy of Bank Passbook of Nithin
Kumar
Ex.P.10 & Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of
11: Petitioners No.1 and 2
Ex.P.12: Notarized copy of Birth Certificate of
Petitioner No.2
Ex.P.13: Notarized copy of Marriage Certificate
Ex.P.14: Notarized copy of Genealogy Tree
Ex.P.15: Notarized copy of Identity Card
Ex.P.16: Notarized copy of General Power of
Attorney
37 MVC No.6157/2022
Ex.P.17: Certificate under Section 65B of Indian
Evidence Act
Ex.P.18 & Salary Slips
19:
Ex.P.20: Annual Increment Letter
Ex.P.21: Appointment Letter Temporary
Ex.P.22: Appointment Letter Permanent
Ex.P.23: Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of deceased
Ex.P.24: Notarized copy of Election Identity Card of
deceased
Ex.P.25 & Notarized copy of Bank Passbook of the 26: petitioner and deceased Ex.P.27: Notarized copy of Aadhar Card Ex.P.28: GST Bill Ex.P.29: Nisarga Hotel Cash Bill Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents
-Nil-
Documents marked on behalf of respondents
-Nil-
(Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.