Bangalore District Court
T. Nanjappa vs Ramesh Alias Lancer Ramesh on 2 December, 2024
KABC020153372018
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 Additional Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
Dated this 02nd day of December, 2024
Petitioners in 1. T. Nanjappa S/o Late Channaiah,
MVC 3559/2018: Aged about 50 years,
2. Manjula W/o T. Nanjappa,
Aged about 37 years,
Both are R/at No.47, Chandra
Shekar Azad Road, Near Gavi
Gangadareswara Temple,
Gavipuram, Hanumanthanagar,
Gavipuram Extension,
Bengaluru - 560019.
(Sri K. Gunde Gowda, Advocate)
Petitioner in Master Hemanth
MVC 6438/2018: S/o Keshavamurthy T. C.,
2 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
Aged about 13 years,
R/at Thippasandra Grama,
Magadi Taluk, Ramanagar - 562131.
(Since minor represented by his
natural guardian/father
Keshavamurthy T. C.)
(Sri K. Gunde Gowda, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents in 1. Ramesh @ Lancer Ramesh
both the cases : S/o Late Venkatesh,
R/at No.118, 1st Cross,
M. M. Garden, Babusapalya,
Bengaluru - 560 043.
(RC Owner of Zen Car bearing
Reg. No.KA-03-MD-4457)
(Sri A. Somaraju, Advocate)
2. The Manager, RNS Maruthi
Motors, Gokul Road,
Opp. Big Bazzar, Hubbali,
Karnataka State - 580 026.
(Ex-parte)
3. The Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd.,
No.4/10, 1st Floor, West Wing,
Mytree Centre, Hosur Road,
Bengaluru - 560 068.
(Sri B. M. Kushalappa, Advocate)
3 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
COMMON JUDGMENT
These petitions are filed under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- in
M.V.C. No.3559/2018 and Rs.10,00,000/- in M.V.C.
No.6438/2018 from the respondents, on account of death
of the deceased Master Barun N., in M.V.C. No.3559/2018
and grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner in M.V.C.
No.6438/2018, in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :
On 27-05-2017 at about 1.15 p.m., the deceased
Master Barun N., in M.V.C. No.3559/2018 and the petitioner
in M.V.C. No.6438/2018 were standing on the road side near
Ganesha Temple, Service Road, Babusapalya. At that time,
suddenly the driver of Zen car bearing No.KA-03-MD-4457
came from Babusapalya main road, in high speed, in rash
and negligent manner and dashed initially to the
motorcycle Splendor, Assent Cab, motorcycle TVS Star City
4 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
and Honda Activa, then in order to escape from the
accident spot, the driver of the car once again drove the
same in high speed, in rash and negligent manner, without
observing traffic rules and regulations, lost control over his
car and hit the deceased and the petitioner and caused the
accident. The front wheel of the car ran over the head of the
deceased in M.V.C. No.3559/2018 and other parts of the
body and the petitioner in M.V.C. No.6438/2018 fell down
and sustained grievous injuries over his head and other
parts of the body. Due to said terrific impact, Master Barun
N., succumbed to injuries on the spot. Earlier to the
accident, the deceased was 7th standard student, studying
in "Sree Saraswathi Vidya Mandira", Gavipuram, Bengaluru.
Due to the sudden and tragic death of the deceased, the
petitioners are undergoing deep mental shock, pain,
mental agony and untold hardship. Further, they have lost
the love and affection, care, companionship and service of
the deceased. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner
5 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
in M.V.C. No.6438/2018 was shifted to Specialist Hospital for
treatment and then he was referred to Rainbow Children's
Hospital, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient. Earlier
to the accident, he was 7th standard student. After the
accident, he could not attend the school for about few
months and thereby sustained loss of studies. The
Banasavadi Traffic Police have registered the case against
the driver of the said car for the offences punishable under
Section 279, 338 and 304(A) of I.P.C. The respondent No.2 is
the dealer of Maruthi Company, who has sold the white
colour Maruthi Zen car bearing Engine No.G10BBN311830
and Chassis No.MA3EYD32S00802258 to the purchaser.
While purchasing the said car, the purchaser has obtained a
Hypothecation loan from the respondent No.3. But, the
purchaser did not repay the loan amount in time. Hence,
the bank has seized the said Maruthi car from the
purchaser against the outstanding loan amount. After that
in the year 2007, the respondent No.3 ICICI Bank has
6 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
publicly auctioned the above said Maruthi car. In the
auction, the respondent No.1 has participated and
purchased the car from the bank and obtained all vehicle
documents. Since then the respondent No.1 became the
owner of the said car and was in possession of the same.
From then onward, the respondent No.1 was using the car
without transferring the same in his name and by fixing
fake number plate of a Santro car, bearing registration
No.KA-03-MD-4457. Hence, the respondents 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.50,00,000/- in MVC No.3559/2018 and
Rs.10,00,000/- in MVC No.6438/2018 with interest.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the
respondents No.1 and 3 have appeared through their
counsel and filed their separate written statements.
Whereas, the respondent No.2 did not choose to appear
7 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
and remained absent. Hence, the respondent No.2 is placed
as ex-parte.
4. The respondent No.1 in his written statement has
denied all the allegations made in the petitions. He has
contended that, he is not at all the owner of the vehicle
involved in the alleged accident bearing Reg. No.KA-03-MD-
4457. The Banasawadi Police have registered a false and
frivolous case against him in Crime No.123/2007 and
thereafter, they have filed false charge-sheet in
C.C.No.9336/2018, before the Jurisdictional Magistrate
Court. During the course of investigation, the concerned
Sup-Inspector of Police has failed to trace out the real
owner of the vehicle involved in the alleged accident and he
has referred the matter to the Hennur Police Station to find
out the real owner of the alleged vehicle involved in the
accident. The Hennur Police have registered a false case
based on the Crime No.194/2017. On the basis of the
alleged false complaint, the Inspector of Hennur Police
8 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
Station has conducted detailed investigation to find out the
real owner of the alleged vehicle involved in the accident.
After investigation, the Inspector of Police of Hennur Police
Station has filed the charge-sheet in C.C.No.50221/19. The
I.O. of Hennur Police Station has also failed to find out the
real owner of the vehicle involved in the alleged accident.
The said case before the XI ACMM, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, is
pending for adjudication. The investigation officer of
Hennur Police Station has also not conducted the detail
investigation to find out the real truth of the case and has
submitted frivolous charge-sheet before the Hon'ble Court.
The documents produced by the investigation officer of
both the Police Stations before the concerned Hon'ble Court
goes to show that, the respondent No.1 is not the owner of
the vehicle in the alleged accident. Further it is contended
that, the investigation officer of Banaswadi Police Station
has forcefully taken the statement of his son and without
disclosing the contents of the statement has insisted his
9 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
son to affix his signatures on some documents and also
they have taken his son's signature on the blank papers
forcefully and also taken statement of some of the persons
during the course of investigation with an intention to help
the petitioners to get the award amount by this Hon'ble
Court, with misrepresentation and suppression of true and
material facts. At the time of accident, the respondent No.1
was not the owner of the alleged vehicle, hence he is not at
all a proper and necessary party to the above claim
petitions and without knowing the real owner of the alleged
vehicle, the petitioners have falsely implicated him by
colluding with the jurisdictional police. Further, in the
additional written statement, the respondent No.1 has
denied all the allegations made in both the petitions. He has
contended that, he has not purchased Maruti Zen car
bearing Engine No.G10BBN311830 and Chassis
No.MA3EYD32S00802258 in public auction. The
respondents No.2 and 3 have not produced even a single
10 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
piece of document to show that, the alleged vehicle was
sold to anybody and they have also not produced any
document with respect to auction of the alleged vehicle in
public auction. They have not produced any document to
show that the respondent No.1 has purchased the alleged
vehicle from the respondent No.3 bank. For the above
denials and contentions, it is prayed for dismissal of the
petitions.
5. Likewise, the respondent No.3 in its written statement
has denied all the allegations made in the petitions. Further,
he has contended that, in the year 2005 they have financed
to purchase a Hyundai Santro Xing car and the same has
been closed much prior to the date of alleged accident. The
respondent No.3 is just a financier and no liability can be
fastened against it. The petitions are bad for mis-joinder of
unnecessary party. The compensation claimed by the
petitioners is highly excessive and exorbitant. It is further
contended that, on 24-02-2005 it had financed Mr. Srinivas
11 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
P., for the purchase of alleged vehicle bearing No.KA-03-
MD-4457, which is a Hyundai Santro Xing car, for a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/-, which was availed for a term of 60 months
i.e., 5 years and the said P. Srinivas had cleared the loan on
04-03-2010 and hypothecation has also been canceled in
the registration certificate. It has contended that, as alleged
in the petitions that, the said vehicle bearing No.KA-03-MD-
4457 is a Maruti Zen vehicle and the same belongs to
Ramesh @ Lancer Ramesh are absolutely false and
incorrect and as per the 'B' Extract the said vehicle bearing
No.KA-03-MD-4457 is a Hyundai Santro Xing vehicle and the
same belongs to Srinivas P. In the additional written
statement, it has further denied that it has funded the white
colour Maruti Zen car, bearing Engine No.G10BBN311830
and Chassis No.MA3EYD32S00802258. There is no
hypothecation of respondent No.3 on the above said white
colour Maruti Zen car. For the above denials and
contentions, it is prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
12 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
6. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the
following issues are framed:
Issues in M.V.C. No.3559/2018
1. Whether the petitioners prove that,
deceased Master Barun N., succumbed to
the injuries sustained in vehicular accident
alleged to have occurred on 27-05-2017
due to the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the car bearing registration
No.KA-03-MD-4457 ?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the quantum
and from whom?
3. What order or Award?
Additional Issue No.1 in MVC No.3559/2018
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, offended
car is Maruthi Zen of White Colour, having
Engine No.G10BBN311830 and Chassis
13 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
No.MA3EYD32S00802258 and its the car
number fake?
Issues in MVC No.6438/2018
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he has
sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic
accident alleged to have occurred on 27-05-
2017 at about 1.15 p.m., due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the
car bearing registration No.KA-03-MD-
4457?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the quantum
and from whom?
3. What order or Award?
Additional Issue No.1 in MVC No.6438/2018
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, offended
car is Maruthi Zen of White Colour, having
Engine No.G10BBN311830 and Chassis
14 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
No.MA3EYD32S00802258 and its the car
number fake ?
7. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 in
M.V.C. No.3559/2018 and the natural guardian of the
petitioner in M.V.C. No.6438/2019 have got examined
themselves as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively and got marked
total 30 documents as Ex.P.1 to 30 and closed their side. On
the other hand, the respondent No.1 has examined himself
as R.W.1 and got marked 2 documents as Ex.R.1 and 2 and
closed his side. The respondent No.3 has examined its
Manager Legal and ARTO as R.W.2 and R.W.3 and got
marked 23 documents as Ex.R.3 to 25 and closed its side.
8. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and
perused the entire material placed on record.
9. My findings on the above issues are as under:
In MVC Nos.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
Issue No.1: Affirmative
15 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
Additional 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 and Additional Issue No.1 in both the
cases: As both these Issue are inter-connected to each
other, in order to avoid repetition of facts and
circumstances of the case and for better appreciation of
evidence on record, I take both the issues together for
common discussion.
11. It is specific case of the petitioners in M.V.C.
Nos.3559/2018 and M.V.C. No.6438/2018 that, on 27-05-
2017 at about 1.15 p.m., the deceased Master Barun N. and
the petitioner in M.V.C. No.6438/2018 were standing on the
road side near Ganesha Temple, Service Road, Babusapalya.
At that time, suddenly the driver of Zen car bearing No.KA-
03-MD-4457 came from Babusapalya main road, in high
16 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
speed, in rash and negligent manner and dashed initially to
the motorcycle Splendor, Assent Cab, motorcycle TVS Star
City and Honda Activa, then in order to escape from the
accident spot, the driver of the car once again drove the
same in high speed, in rash and negligent manner, without
observing traffic rules and regulations, lost control over his
car and hit the deceased and the petitioner and caused the
accident. The front wheel of the car ran over the head of the
deceased in M.V.C. No.3559/2018 and other parts of the
body and the petitioner in M.V.C. No.6438/2018 fell down
and sustained grievous injuries over his head and other
parts of the body. Due to said terrific impact, Master Barun
N., succumbed to injuries on the spot. Further it is
contended that, in the year 2007, the respondent No.3 ICICI
Bank has publicly auctioned the offending Maruthi Zen car
Engine No.G10BBN311830 and Chassis
No.MA3EYD32S00802258 and the same is purchased by the
respondent No.1. Since then the respondent No.1 became
17 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
the owner of the said car and was in possession of the
same. The respondent No.1 was using the said car without
getting it transferred in his name and by fixing fake number
plate of a Santro car, bearing registration No.KA-03-MD-
4457 on it.
12. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 in
MVC No.3559/2018 and natural guardian of petitioner in
MVC No.6438/2018 have got examined themselves as P.W.1
and P.W.2 by filing examination-in-chief affidavit, wherein
they have reiterated the entire averments made in the
petition. In support of their oral evidence, the petitioners
have got marked 30 documents as Ex.P.1 to 30. Out of the
said documents, Ex.P.1 is F.I.R., Ex.P.2 is first information
statement, Ex.P.3 is sketch, Ex.P.4 is spot mahazar, Ex.P.5
and 6 are Motor Vehicle Accident reports, Ex.P.7 is inquest,
Ex.P.8 is post-mortem report, Ex.P.9 are statement of
witnesses (total 4), Ex.P.10 is charge-sheet, Ex.P.11 is school
admission record, Ex.P.12 is copy of ration card, Ex.P.13 is
18 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
copy of Aadhar Card, Ex.P.14 is in-patient bill, Ex.P.15 is
growth assessment report, Ex.P.16 are x-rays (total 5),
Ex.P.17 are CT scan films (total 6), Ex.P.18 is death
certificate, Ex.P.19 are notarised copies of the Aadhar cards,
Ex.P.20 is notarised copy of the ID card, Ex.P.21 is wound
certificate, Ex.P.22 is police intimation, Ex.P.23 is certified
copy of letter issued by ICICI Bank, Ex.P.24 is certified copy
of statement of ICICI Bank Manager, Ex.P.25 is certified
copy of police notice issued to Manager RNS Motors dated
07-12-2017, Ex.P.26 is certified copy of notice issued
U/Sec.133 of M.V.Act, Ex.P.27 is certified copy of statement
of respondent No.1, dated 31-05-2017, Ex.P.28 is certified
copy of reply to notice issued under Sec.133 of M.V.Act and
letter dated 16-11-2017, Ex.P.29 is certified copy of
statement of witnesses (total 2) and Ex.P.30 is certified copy
of depositions (total 5)
13. On meticulously going through the police documents
marked as Ex.P.1 to 10, prima-facia it reveals that, on 27-05-
19 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
2017 at about 1.15 p.m., when the deceased Master Barun
N. and the petitioner in M.V.C. No.6438/2018 were standing
on the road side near Ganesha Temple, Service Road,
Babusapalya, the driver of Zen car bearing No.KA-03-MD-
4457 came from Babusapalya main road, in high speed, in
rash and negligent manner and dashed initially to the
motorcycle Splendor, Assent Cab, motorcycle TVS Star City
and Honda Activa and thereafter dashed the deceased and
the petitioner. Due to said impact, Master Barun and the
petitioner in M.V.C. No.6438/2018 sustained grievous
injuries over their head and other parts of the body and
Master Barun succumbed to injuries on the spot. Further,
the investigation officer in his final report, marked as
Ex.P.10, has clearly stated that, the said accident is caused
due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Maruti
Zen car bearing Engine No.G10BBN311830 and Chassis
No.MA3EYD32S00802258 and the respondent No.1 was
plying the said car on the road without getting it
20 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
transferred in his name and by fixing a fake number plate
of Santro car, bearing registration No.KA-03-MD-4457 on it.
The said facts have been deposed by P.W.1 & P.W.2 in their
examination-in-chief affidavit. It is pertinent to note that, no
where in the entire cross-examination of P.W.1 & P.W.2, the
learned counsel for respondent No.1 & 3 has denied that,
the said accident is caused due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of offending vehicle and the number
plate fixed on it, bearing registration No.KA-03-MD-4457,
was a fake registration number. Though, the learned
counsel for respondent No.1 & 3 have cross-examined
P.W.1 & P.W.2 in length nothing worth has been elicited
from their mouth, which creates doubt on the veracity of
their evidence. Further, it is not the case of the respondents
that, there was any negligence or contributory negligence
on the part of the deceased or the petitioner in M.V.C.
No.6438/2018.
21 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
14. Further, the Ex.P.3 sketch and Ex.P.4 spot mahazer
clearly speaks that, the accident has taken place on the
extreme side of Babusapalya service road, near Ganesha
Temple, where the deceased Master Barun and the
petitioner in M.V.C. No.6438/2018 were standing and the
offending Maruti Zen car came from Babusapalya main
road and dashed to them. Further, as per the Motor Vehicle
Accident Report, which is marked as Ex.P.5, the accident is
not caused 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 offending vehicle and
when there was no negligence on the part of the deceased
and the petitioner in M.V.C. No.6438/2018, 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 vehicle.
There is absolutely no rebuttal evidence placed on record
by the respondents and even nothing has been elicited in
22 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
the cross-examination of P.W.1 & P.W.2, which creates
doubt on the veracity of their evidence. There is absolutely
no reason to disbelieve oral and documentary evidence
placed on record by the petitioners with respect to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of offending car. Further, the
investigation officer in his Ex.P.10 final report/charge-sheet
has clearly stated that, the said accident is caused due to
rash and negligent driving of the offending Maruti Zen car
bearing Engine No.G10BBN311830 and Chassis
No.MA3EYD32S00802258. Admittedly, the Ex.P.10 final
report/charge-sheet has not been challenged by the owner
or the driver of offending vehicle. In such circumstances,
there is no impediment to believe the final report/charge-
sheet filed by the investigation officer and other police
records, regarding the date, time and place, involvement of
the offending Maruti Zen car, rash and negligent driving of
the driver of said car and injuries caused to the deceased
and the petitioner in M.V.C. No.6438/2018 in the said
23 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
accident, cause of death of deceased Master Barun and the
number plate fixed on the said vehicle was a fake
registration number.
15. Further, the Ex.P.8 Post-motem report, clearly speaks
that, the deceased Barun N., has died due to shock and
haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained in
the road traffic accident. Further, on meticulously going
through the Ex.P.16 x-rays (total 5), Ex.P.17 CT scan films
(total 6), Ex.P.21 wound certificate, it clearly reveals that, the
petitioner in M.V.C. No.6438/2018 namely Hemanth has
suffered grievous injuries i.e., left frontal subarachnoid
haemorrhage and left clavicle fracture in a road traffic
accident. On the other hand, the respondents No.1 and 3
have not produced any rebuttal evidence to show that, the
above medical records are false. In such circumstances and
in the light of above observations, it can be safely held that,
the respondents have failed to rebut the oral and
documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners,
24 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
regarding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending Maruthi Zen car and the injuries caused to the
deceased Barun N., and the petitioner in M.V.C.
No.6438/2018 in the said accident.
16. 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
criminal trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Parameshwari V/s Amir Chand and others, reported in
(2011) SCC 635, has clearly held that, "in a road accident
claim cases the strict principle of proof 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
25 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
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 in
M.V.C.No.3559/2018 has successfully proved that, deceased
Master Barun N., has sustained grievous injuries in road
traffic accident took place on 27-05-2017, at about 1.15
p.m., near Ganesha Temple, on Babusapalya service road,
due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
offending Maruti Zen car bearing Engine
No.G10BBN311830 and Chassis No.MA3EYD32S00802258.
Likewise, the petitioner in M.V.C. No.6438/2018 has
successfully proved that, he has sustained grievous injuries
in the said accident. Further, the petitioners in both the
case have successfully proved that, the said accident is
caused by Maruti Zen car bearing Engine
26 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
No.G10BBN311830 and Chassis No.MA3EYD32S00802258
and the number plate fixed on the said vehicle, bearing
registration No.KA-03-MD-4457, is a fake registration
number. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 and Additional Issue
No.1 in M.V.C. No.3559/2018 and M.V.C. No.6438/2018 in
Affirmative.
19. Issue No.2 in MVC 3559/2018: While answering
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
alleged accident has caused due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of offending Maruti Zen car bearing
Engine No.G10BBN311830 and Chassis
No.MA3EYD32S00802258 and due to said impact the
deceased Master Barun N., has sustained grievous injuries
on his head and died on the spot. Now the petitioners are
required to establish that, they are the legal representatives
of the deceased. In this regard, they have produced Aadhar
27 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
cards (total 3), which are marked as Ex.P.19. The said
documents clearly goes to show that, the petitioner No.1 is
the father and petitioner No.2 is the mother of deceased
Barun N. The relationship of petitioners with the deceased
is not in dispute. In such circumstances, there is no
impediment to believe the above documents produced by
the petitioners and hold that, the petitioners are the legal
heirs of deceased Barun N.
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
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
28 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
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.
According to Section 2(11) CPC, "legal
representative" means a person who in law
represents the Tractor and Trally bearing
No.AP-03-AN-8690 & AP-03-AN-8712 estate of a
deceased person, and includes any person who
intermeddles with the estate of the deceased
and where a party sues or is sued in a
representative character the person on whom
the estate devolves on the death of the party
so suing or sued. Almost in similar terms is the
definition of legal representative under the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 i.e.
under Section 2(1)(g).
As observed by this Court in Custodian
of Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino
vs. Nalini Bai Naique [1989 Supp (2) SCC 275,
the definition contained in Section 2(11) CPC is
inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is
not confined to legal heirs only. Instead it
stipulates that, a person who may or may not
be legal heir competent to inherit the property
of the deceased can represent the estate of the
deceased person. It includes heirs as well as
persons who represent the estate even
without title either as executors or
administrators in possession of the estate of
29 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
the deceased. All such persons would be
covered by the expression "legal
representative". As observed in Gujarat SRTC
vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai [(1987) 3 SCC 234 a
legal representative is one who suffers on
account of death of a person due to a motor
vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a
wife, husband, parent and child.
In Manjuri Bera (supra), in paragraph 15
of the said decision, while adverting to the
provisions of Section 140 of the Act, the Court
observed that even if there is no loss of
dependency, the claimant, if he was a legal
representative, will be entitled to
compensation. In the concurring judgment of
Justice S. H. Kapadia, as His Lordship then was,
it is observed that there is distinction between
"right to apply for compensation" and
"entitlement to compensation". The
compensation constitutes part of the estate of
the deceased. As a result, the legal
representative of the deceased would inherit
the estate. Indeed, in that case, the Court was
dealing with the case of a married daughter of
the deceased and the efficacy of Section 140 of
the Act. Nevertheless, the principle underlying
the exposition in this decision would clearly
come to the aid of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2
(claimants) even though they are major sons of
the deceased and also earning.
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
30 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
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
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 petitioners No.1 is the father and petitioner No.2 is the
mother of deceased Barun N. The petitioners have
established that, they are legal representatives of the
deceased. Further, they have stated that, they were to be
dependent on their deceased son during their old age.
31 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
Hence, the petitioners are entitled for compensation under
the head of loss of dependency. Admittedly, the deceased
Barun N, who is the son of petitioners, was aged about 12
years as on the date of accident and he was non-earning
member at that time. Such being the situation in the
present case, considering the avocation, income and future
prospects do not arise. But, with regard to dependency is
concerned, it is appropriate to follow the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan
Gopal and another V/s Lala and others, reported in 2013
AIR SCW 5037, in the present case as well. For the purpose
of considering multiplier in the present case, age of mother
of the deceased is taken into consideration, as she is the
younger parent. As per Ex.P.19 Aadhar card, the age of
petitioner No.2 as on the date of accident was 36 years. So
multiplier of 15 is applicable. Notional annual income for
calculation of dependency is considered at Rs.30,000/-.
Thus, annual notional income of Rs. 30,000/- x multiplier of
32 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
15 comes to Rs.4,50,000/-. Therefore, compensation of
Rs.4,50,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of
dependency to the petitioners.
i) Compensation under conventional heads: In
the present case, admittedly the petitioner No.1 is the
father and petitioner No.2 is the mother of deceased Barun
N. They both being the parents of deceased Barun N., are
entitled for compensation under the head of loss 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
33 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
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 filial consortium comes to Rs.48,000/- each to
petitioner No.1 & 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. 4,50,000-00
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. 5,82,000-00
Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that,
the petitioners are entitled for compensation of
Rs.5,82,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of petition till its realization.
34 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
24. Issue No.2 in MVC No.6438/2018: While answering
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
alleged accident has caused due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of offending Maruti Zen car bearing
Engine No.G10BBN311830 and Chassis
No.MA3EYD32S00802258 and he has sustained grievous
injuries in the said accident. The petitioner has sustained
left frontal subarachnoid haemorrhage and left clavicle
fracture. Therefore, this Court is of the further opinion that,
the petitioner is entitled for compensation under various
heads. No doubt as per the Ex.P.21 wound certificate, the
petitioner has sustained grievous injury, but he has not
produced any document to show that, he has suffered any
physical disability on account of injuries sustained by him
and he is not in a position to perform his day today work.
The petitioner has not examined any doctor to prove that,
35 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
he has suffered any physical disability. In such
circumstances, there is no other option before this Court,
except to award global compensation in general for the
injuries sustained by the petitioner.
25. As per Ex.P.21 wound certificate, the petitioner has
sustained grievous injury i.e. left frontal subarachnoid
haemorrhage and left clavicle fracture. Further, the
document marked as Ex.P.14 clearly speaks that,
immediately after the accident he was shifted to Rainbow
Children's Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru, wherein he has
taken treatment as in-patient.
26. Further, the petitioner has deposed that, he has
incurred expenses of Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical,
conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charge etc.
In order to prove the same, he has produced in-patient bill,
as per Ex.P.14. The said bill has been examined carefully
and found that, the petitioner has produced duplicate
36 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
inpatient bill and not the original in-patient bill. Therefore,
the said bill is not taken into consideration.
27. Further, the natural guardian of the petitioner/P.W.2
has deposed in his evidence that, earlier to the accident the
petitioner was 7th standard student. After the accident, he
cannot attend the school for few months and thereby
sustained loss of studies. Due to the accidental injuries, he
has become permanently disabled. But, the petitioner has
neither examined the doctor, nor he has produced any
document to show that, he has suffered any permanent
physical disability or deformity due to injuries sustained in
the accident. Such being the case, it is difficult to ascertain
pain and sufferings, laid up period, conveyance, amenities
etc. No doubt, due to above injuries the petitioner could
have suffered some pain and sufferings and the same
would have been nourished with nutritious food, he might
have attended with the attendants and he might have spent
some amount for conveyance. In such circumstances,
37 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the
case, even though there is no documentary evidence placed
on record by the petitioner to show that, he has suffered
any physical disability or deformity due to injuries sustained
in the accident, taking into consideration the injuries and
pain suffered by the petitioner, the age of the petitioner
and the medical expenses incurred by him, on
humanitarian ground and in general-globally, this Court is
of the opinion that, some suitable compensation is required
to be awarded to the petitioner as he knocked the door of
this Court for compensation. Accordingly, awarding total
compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner, would meet
the ends of justice.
28. Liability: It is specific case of the petitioners in both
the cases that, the respondent No.2, who is the dealer of
Maruthi Company, has sold the offending Maruthi Zen car
bearing Engine No.G10BBN311830 and Chassis
No.MA3EYD32S00802258 to its purchaser. The purchaser
38 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
has purchased the said car by availing loan on
Hypothecation from the respondent No.3. On account of
non repayment of loan amount in time, the bank has seized
the said Maruthi Zen car from the purchaser against the
outstanding loan amount. In the year 2007, the respondent
No.3 ICICI Bank has publicly auctioned the said car. The
respondent No.1 has participated and purchased the said
car in auction from the respondent No.3 bank and obtained
all the vehicle documents. Since then the respondent No.1
became the owner of the said car and was in possession of
the same. Further it is contended that, the respondent No.1
was using the said car without transferring the same in his
name and by fixing fake number plate of a Santro car,
bearing registration No.KA-03-MD-4457. Hence, the
respondent No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay
the compensation to the petitioners.
29. But, the petitioners in both the cases have failed to
establish the said contentions. The petitioners have not
39 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
produced single piece of document to show that, the
respondent No.3 ICICI Bank has advanced loan to some one
to purchase Maruthi Zen car bearing Engine
No.G10BBN311830 and Chassis No.MA3EYD32S00802258
and on account of non repayment of alleged loan the
respondent No.3 has seized the said car from the
purchaser. Likewise, there is no single piece of document
produced by the petitioners to show that, the respondent
No.3 has auctioned the said car in public auction and the
same is purchased by the respondent No.1. Further, there is
no evidence on record to show that, the respondent No.3
has handed over the possession of said car to the
respondent No.1 and the said vehicle was being used by the
respondent No.1. Further, as per Ex.R.1, the Hon'ble
Additional Civil & Sessions Judge, Children's Court (Special),
Bengaluru, in the judgment dated 25-11-2023, in Spl.
C.C.No.157/2020, at Para No.74, has clearly held that, the
prosecution has failed to prove that, the accused No.2, who
40 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
is respondent No.1 in the present case, was in possession of
the offending car and he has allowed the accused No.1 to
use the said car, knowingly that he was not having valid
driving licence and has ultimately acquitted the accused
No.2/respondent No.1 for the alleged offences punishable
under Sec.180 R/w Sec.5 of Motor Vehicles Act. In the
present case also, the petitioners in both the cases have
failed to prove that, as on the date of accident the offending
Maruti Zen car bearing Engine No.G10BBN311830 and
Chassis No.MA3EYD32S00802258, was in the possession of
respondent No.1 and he has allowed his son Suresh to drive
the said car, at the time of accident. Further, on
meticulously going through the entire police records in
Crime No.123/2017, which are marked as Ex.P.1 to 10 it
clearly reveals that, no documents have been secured by
the investigation officer with regard to purchase of
offending Maruti Zen car bearing Engine
No.G10BBN311830 and Chassis No.MA3EYD32S00802258
41 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
by the respondent No.1 in the alleged auction sale made by
the respondent No.3 ICICI Bank and mere on the basis of
oral statements of the witnesses, the respondent No.2 has
been made as accused No.2 in the case and charge-sheet
has been foisted against him. Even, nothing has been
elicited in the cross-examination of R.W.1 to R.W.3 which
establishes that, as on the date of accident the respondent
No.1 was the owner of offending Maruti Zen Car bearing
Engine No.G10BBN311830 and Chassis
No.MA3EYD32S00802258 or he was in possession of said
vehicle.
30. As per provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the
owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer is
liable to pay compensation in case any death or grievous
hurt is caused due to any accident arising out of the use of
said vehicle. As per Sec.2(30) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
'owner' means a person in whose name a motor vehicle
stands registered and where such person is a minor, the
42 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
guardian of such minor and in relation to a motor
vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase
agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement
of hypothecation, the person in possession of the
vehicle under that agreement.
31. In the present case, the petitioners in both the cases
have failed to prove that, as on the date of accident the
respondent No.1 was the owner of offending Maruti Zen
Car bearing Engine No.G10BBN311830 and Chassis
No.MA3EYD32S00802258 or he was in possession of said
vehicle. In such circumstances, the respondent No.1 cannot
be held liable to pay the above compensation amount to
the petitioners. Whereas, the respondent No.2 being just
the car dealer of offending vehicle, even he cannot be held
liable to pay the above compensation amount to the
petitioners. Further, as there is no cogent, corroborative
and convincing evidence on record to show that, the
respondent No.3 has financed for purchase of offending
43 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
Maruti Zen car bearing Engine No.G10BBN311830 and
Chassis No.MA3EYD32S00802258 and thereafter, for non-
repayment of loan amount by the purchaser it has seized
the said vehicle from its owner and sold the same to the
respondent No.1 in auction sale, even the respondent No.3
cannot be held liable to pay the above compensation
amount to the petitioners. Therefore, in such circumstances
and for the above stated reasons, this Court is of the
considered opinion that, the respondent No.1 to 3 are not
liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners.
Accordingly, holding that, the petitioners are entitled for
the above compensation amount from the R.C. owner of
offending Maruti Zen car bearing Engine
No.G10BBN311830 and Chassis No.MA3EYD32S00802258
and not from the respondent No.1 to 3, I answer Issue No.2
in both the cases Partly Affirmative.
32. Issue No.3: In view of the above findings, I proceed to
pass the following order:
44 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
ORDER
The petitions filed under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw award accordingly in both the cases.
A copy of this judgment shall be kept in file of MVC No.6438/2018. (Dictated to the stenographer, directly on computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this the 02 nd day of December, 2024) (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners:
P.W.1: T. Nanjappa S/o Late Channaiah P.W.2: Keshavamurthy T. C., S/o Channaiah Documents marked on behalf of petitioners:
Ex.P.1: F.I.R.
Ex.P.2: First Information Statement
Ex.P.3: Sketch
Ex.P.4: Spot Mahazar
45 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018
Ex.P.5: Motor Vehicles Accident Report
Ex.P.6: Motor Vehicles Accident Report
Ex.P.7: Inquest
Ex.P.8: Post-mortem Report
Ex.P.9: Statements of witnesses (total 4)
Ex.P.10: Charge-sheet
Ex.P.11: School Admission Record Ex.P.12: Notarized copy of the Ration Card Ex.P.13: Notarized copy of the Aadhar Card Ex.P.14: Inpatient Bill Ex.P.15: Growth Assessment Report Ex.P.16: X-rays (total 5) Ex.P.17: CT Scan Films (total 6) Ex.P.18: Death Certificate Ex.P.19: Notarized copies of Aadhar Cards (total 3) Ex.P.20: Notarized copy of I.D. Card Ex.P.21: Wound Certificate Ex.P.22: MLC Intimation Ex.P.23: Certified copy of Letter issued by ICICI Bank Ex.P.24: Certified copy of Statement of ICICI Bank Manager Ex.P.25: Certified copy of Police Notice issued to Manager RNS Motors dated 07-12-2017 Ex.P.26: Certified copy of Notice under Sec.133 of M.V.Act.
Ex.P.27: Certified copy of Statement given by respondent No.1 dated 31-05-2017 Ex.P.28: Certified copy of Reply to Notice under 46 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018 Sec.133 of M.V.Act and Letter dated 16-11- 2017 Ex.P.29: Certified copy of Statement of Witness (total 2) Ex.P.30: Certified copies of Deposition (total 5) Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
R.W.1: Ramesh S/o Late Venkateshappa R.W.2: Harshavardhan S/o T. Srinivasan R.W.3: B. Srinivasprasad S/o M.V. Battachar Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1: Certified copy of Judgment in Special CC No.157/2020 Ex.R.2 : Certified copy of Judgment in Special CC No.50221/2019 Ex.R.3: True copy of Statement of Account Ex.R.4: True copy of Challan (total 6) Ex.R.5: True copy of Form No.14 Ex.R.6: True copy of Form No.20 Ex.R.7: True copy of Form No.21 Ex.R.8: True copy of Form No.22 Ex.R.9: True copy of Form No.60 Ex.R.10: True copy of Form No.19 Ex.R.11: True copy of Invoice Ex.R.12: True copy of Form No.28 Ex.R.13: True copy of NOC Ex.R.14: True copy of Letter bearing No.4482/2008 Ex.R.15: True copy of Letter dated 27-05-2008 47 MVC No.3559/2018 & 6438/2018 Ex.R.16: True copy of NOC Cancellation Ex.R.17: True copy of Canceled Form No.28 Ex.R.18: True copy of NOC dated 27-03-2020 to Insurance Company Ex.R.19: True copy of NOC dated 27-03-2010 to RTO Ex.R.20: True copy of Form No.35 Ex.R.21: True copy of Letter to issue Clearance Certificate Ex.R.22: True copy of Office Endorsement Ex.R.23: True copy of Registration Details of vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-03-MD-4457 Ex.R.24: True copy of Registered Vehicle Details Ex.R.25: True copy of Information Letter (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.