Bangalore District Court
Pramilabai vs K. Irfan on 1 August, 2025
KABC020101232019
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU. (SCCH-_25)
-: PRESENT:-
PRESENT: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA. R,
B.A.L, LL.B.,
XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF AUGUST 2025
MVC No.2186/2019
PETITIONER: 1. Smt. Pramilabai
W/o Late Lakshminayak,
Aged about 29 years,
2. Kum. Divyashree
D/o Late Lakshminayak
and Smt. Pramilabai,
Aged about 12 years,
3. Pavankalyan Kumar
Nayak
S/o Late Lakshminayak
and Smt. Pramilabai,
Aged about 10 years,
4.Sri.Doddanarashimanayak
S/o Late Ramanayak,
Aged about 72 years,
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.2186/2019
5. Smt. Kamalabai
W/o Sri.
Doddanarasimanayak
Aged about 66 years,
The Petitioners 2 & 3 are
minors represented by their
Mother and natural
guardian Smt.Pramila Bai,
who is the petitioner No.1
herein.
All are R/at:
Koodenahalli Village,
Mandikal Hobli,
Chikkaballapur Taluk and
District.
(By Sri. Vasanth Kumar N.,
Advocate/s.)
V/S
RESPONDENTS: 1. Sri. K. Irfan
S/o Sri. K. Nooruddin,
R/at No.25, 7th Cross,
APJ Abdul Kalam Azad
Road, Rashadnagar,
Bangalore - 560 026.
(Owner of Ford Fiesta Car
Reg.No.KA-03-MP-0587)
(Ex-parte)
2. The Manager
ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins.
Co. Ltd.,
Second SVR Complex,
SCCH-25 3 MVC No.2186/2019
Hosur Main Road,
Bengaluru - 560 068.
(Policy No.3001/A/157352023/00/B00)
(Sri. Janardhan Reddy,
Advocate.)
******
JUDGMENT
This judgment arise out of claim petition filed by the claimants against respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "Act") praying for awarding compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- for the death of Lakshminayak was died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 23.10.2018 at about 04.30pm.
2. The case of the claimants in nutshell is that:
On 23.10.2018 at about 04.30pm, the deceased Lakshminayak and his relative Ruplanayak are traveling in a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-01- JB-5025, deceased was riding the said motorcycle with carefully, consciously, by observing all traffic rules. While so proceeding near Bushettihalli Cross, NH-7 Road, Chikkaballapur at about 4.30pm a Ford Fiesta Car bearing Reg.No.KA-03-MP-0587 came with SCCH-25 4 MVC No.2186/2019 high speed, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said motorcycle. Due to impact, the rider and pillion rider fell down and suffered grievous injuries. Immediately deceased was shifted to Dist. Government Hospital, Chikkaballapur and then shifted to Higher Hospital NIMHANS, Bangalore, but on the way to the hospital he was succumbed to the injuries. Body was hsifted to Government Hospital, Chikkaballapura, Post Mortem was conducted and handed over the body to the petitioners. The petitioners performed funeral and obsequious ceremonies by spending Rs.60,000/-.
3. It is the further case of the petitioners that, prior to the date of accident deceased was hale and healthy, doing Mason Work and earning Rs.600/- Per day. The deceased was maintaining the family members. Due to the sudden and untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners are terribly and mentally shocked and they have lost love and affection of the deceased. Hence, the petitioners claims Rs.35,00,000/- as the general damages for death of deceased, for mental shock and agony, for loss of earnings, loss of future earning of the deceased, for loss of love and affections. The SCCH-25 5 MVC No.2186/2019 respondent No.1 being the RC owner and the respondent No.2 being the Insurer of the offending Car bearing Reg.No.KA-03-MP-0587 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
4. The accident in question was taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-03-MP-0587. The The accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA- 03-MP-0587. The Gudibande Police have registered a case against the driver of the Car and filed charge sheet against him in Cr.No.242/2018 p/u/Secs.279, 337 & 304(A) of IPC. For the aforesaid reasons, the claimants have prayed for awarding total compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- under various heads.
5. In pursuance of the notice, the respondent No.2 has appeared and filed written statement. In spite of due service of notice the respondent No.1 did not appear hence, placed ex- parte.
5A. The respondent No.2 has filed the written statement denying the entire petition averments.
SCCH-25 6 MVC No.2186/2019Further denied the issuance of policy in respect of Car bearing No.KA-03-MP-0587 as on the date of alleged accident i.e., 23.10.2018 and there is no insured and insurer relationship between the first and second respondent. Further stated that the said policy was obtained by the 1st respondent on 24.10.2018 i.e., after the alleged accident dated 23.10.2018 (i.e., one day of alleged accident). So as on the date of accident this respondent is not issued any policy. Further stated that there was no policy and the charge sheet also filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. The driver has not having DL to drive the offending vehicle as on the date of accident. It has denied the manner of accident. Further denied the expenses towards medical and funeral. It has also denied the age, income, avocation of the deceased. Further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive, exorbitant. Hence, the respondent No. prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.
6. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed for determination.
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, they are the legal representatives and dependents of the deceased Sri. Lakshminayak?
SCCH-25 7 MVC No.2186/20192. Whether the petitioners prove that, the deceased Sri. Lakshminayak had died due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident that occurred on 23.10.2018 at about 4.30pm near Bushettihalli Cross, NH-7 Road, Chikkaballapur, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Ford Fiesta Car bearing Reg.No.KA-03- MP-0587 as alleged?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as claimed? If so, what amount and from whom?
4. What order or Award?
7. In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioner No.1 has examined herself as PW-1 and got marked total 11 documents as Exs.P1 to 11. The respondent No.2 got examined its official as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 & R.2.
8. I have heard the arguments canvassed by the counsel for the parties.
The counsel for the Respondent No.2 has submitted the written arguments.
SCCH-25 8 MVC No.2186/20199. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence let in before this tribunal, my answers to the above points are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative Issue No.2 : In the affirmative.
Issue No.3 : Partly in affirmative Issue No.4 : As per final order, for the foregoing;
REASONS
10. Issue Nos.1 and 2: As these issues are inter-linked each other, as such I considered these issues together for common discussion and also to avoid repetition of facts of the case. As I referred above, In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioner No.1 has examined herself as PW-1 and got marked total Eleven documents as Ex.P1 to 11 and closed their side evidence. The respondent No.2 has got examined its official as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 & R.2. The details of the exhibits are given in the annexure of the judgment.
11. The PW.1 has reiterated the petition averments in the chief examination. The version of the PW.1 has remained unchallenged.
12. To prove the relationship of the SCCH-25 9 MVC No.2186/2019 petitioners with the deceased, they have produced notarized copy of Aadhar Cards of petitioners and the deceased as per Ex.P.11. Ex.P.3 Inquest mahazar also shows the names and relationship of the petitioners with the deceased.
13. The petitioner has totally relied on the police documents to establish the negligence on the part of the deceased and offending vehicle's driver. It is no doubt the police have submitted the charge sheet against the driver of the offending Car after thorough investigation. The sketch appended to spot mahazar indicates that the driver of the offending vehicle was almost on the right side of the road. The road towards Bangalore - Hyderabad NH-7, the accident was occurred. The accident was occurred on the right side of Bangalore Hyderabad Main Road and the offending vehicle was coming on the same direction. The oral evidence of the petitioner No.1 has coupled with documentary evidence. The insurance company has not denied the accident but their contention is that the offending vehicle did not possess valid insurance policy as on the date of accident. The material on records are clearly indicates that the accident has occurred sole negligence on the offending vehicle's driver.
SCCH-25 10 MVC No.2186/201914. The contention of the insurance company that they have not issued the policy on the date of accident. The RW.1 has reiterated the same along with other facts in his chief examination affidavit. The RW.1 has been subjected to cross examination. During the cross examination of RW.1, there is no renewal of the policy and it has not been issued from their company.
15. It is undisputed fact that the there was a delay in lodging the case. The first information report and first information Statement or Complaint discloses delay in presenting the complaint. At this juncture, it is beneficial to refer the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAVI V/s. BADRINARAYAN AND OTHER The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "in accident cases, human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the Police Station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. In cases of delay, the Courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the FIR should also SCCH-25 11 MVC No.2186/2019 be scrutinized more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim cannot be dismissed merely on that ground although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases. Delay in lodging the claim should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. In such cases, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof."
16. In the light of the Judgment referred to supra in RAVI's case, it is manifestly clear delay in lodging the FIR cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. However, the claim has to be examined with a closer scrutiny, particularly the contents of the FIR. So, informant can lodged the complaint as he was busy in hospital or in taking care of the injured person in the hospital There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. In such cases, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof. It is well settled position of law that the proceedings under Motor Vehicle Act are summary in nature and it is beneficial legislation SCCH-25 12 MVC No.2186/2019 and the evidence required about negligence act is sufficient if it is in the nature of preponderance of probability.
17. A perusal of the charge sheet, the police have submitted the charge sheet against the accused or driver of the offending vehicle which is belongs to respondent No.1 and further the police have charge sheet against the respondent No.1 for the offense punishable under section 5 read with 180 of Motor Vehicle Act. The police have referred section 279, 337, 304(A) of IPC and section 134, 196 of MV Act against the accused, so, as per the police documents, the offending vehicle was not possessed the insurance at the time of alleged accident or in other words the offending vehicle was played without valid insurance. The evidence of the PW.1 is coupled with the police documents that the alleged accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. As I referred the insured have failed to cross examine the PW.1 despite of several opportunities. It shows that the insurance company has not seriously disputing the accident in question.
18. The Court cannot adopt strict liability as SCCH-25 13 MVC No.2186/2019 conducted in a criminal case to prove rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the respondent vehicle. But there should be prima-facie materials regarding rash and negligence to fix the owner and insurance company for payment of compensation. Therefore, a straight jacket formula cannot be adopted in accepting the rash and negligence on the part of driver of the insured. The materials on records are clearly indicates that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1. So, I hold issue No.1 and 2 in the affirmative.
19. Issue No.3:
The Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are being wife, minor children, father and mother of the deceased. It is contention of the petitioners that the deceased was doing Mason Work and earning of Rs.600/- Per day. The petitioner No.1 has reiterated the same in the chief examination affidavit. But the petitioners have not placed any material worth in this regard. As per the claim petition the age of the deceased was 35 years. The PM report of the deceased at Ex.P.7 discloses that the deceased age was 35 years. As I mentioned above, the petitioners have not placed any material worth to show the exact income of the SCCH-25 14 MVC No.2186/2019 deceased. So, considering the nature of work, the chart prepared, furnished by the Hon'ble Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, Bengaluru is taken in to consideration, the notional income of Rs.12,500/-pm is calculated to award loss of earning, it would meets the ends of justice. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2017) 16 SCC 680 in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi and others, if an injured person is below 40 years, then 40% of future prospects should be added to his monthly income. So, the monthly income of deceased is Rs.12,500/- and the deceased comes below the age of 40 years slab then 40% of future prospects of his income would come to Rs.5,000/- then after adding the future prospects to his total income it comes to Rs.17,500/-. As per Sarala Varma's case the multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 16. The petitioners are the wife, minor children, father and mother all are depending on the income of the deceased. Therefore, Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are the dependents of the deceased. If there are 4 to 6 dependents, then 1/4th of the income has to deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Then the total income of the deceased would come Rs.13,125/- (Rs.17,500/- -SCCH-25 15 MVC No.2186/2019
Rs.4,375/- = Rs.13,125/-). The loss of dependency is calculated as below. Rs.13,125/- (monthly income) x 12 x 16 (multiplier) =Rs.25,20,000/-. This is just and proper compensation under the head of loss of dependency.
LOSS OF ESTATE
20. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Pranay Sethi case in case of death in the maximum the Court can award Rs.18,000/- in lump sum under the head of loss of estate.
FUNERAL EXPENSES
21. In view of the Pranay Sethi's case this tribunal has no option but to award Rs.18,000/- under this head. Except these heads the claimants are not entitled for any compensation.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in a judgment reported in 1(2018) 18 SCC 130 has held in paragraph No.21 that "A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) dealt with the various heads under which the compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of 1 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram SCCH-25 16 MVC No.2186/2019 Consortium. In legal parlance Consortium is a compendious term which encompasses Spousal Consortium;
Parental consortium and filial consortium. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse."
21 1 "Spousal Consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of Company, Society, co operation, affection and aid of the other in every conjugal relation"
21 2 " Parental Consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training."13,50,180 21 3 " Filial Consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of the Child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock, agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit."
22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world over have recognized that the value of a Child's SCCH-25 17 MVC No.2186/2019 consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore, permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child".
23. The Petitioner No.1 is being wife and petitioner Nos.2 & 3 is being minor children and Petitioner Nos.4 & 5 being the parents of the deceased are entitled for '"Spousal Consortium' 'Parental Consortium' and 'Filial Consortium"
respectively. Hence a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) is awarded under this head.
24. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation under the following heads.
Sl. No. Name of the Head Awarded
Compensation
01. Loss of dependency Rs.25,20,000/-
02. Towards loss of estate Rs.18,000/-
03. Towards Funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
04. Loss of Consortium Rs.2,00,000/-
TOTAL Rs.27,56,000/-
SCCH-25 18 MVC No.2186/2019
25. The next question is the liability to pay the said compensation. As I referred above the accident was occurred due rash and negligent riding of the offending car. It is the specific case of the insurer that there is no insured and insurer relationship between the first and second respondent. Further stated that the said policy was obtained by the 1st respondent on 24.10.2018 i.e., after the alleged accident dated 23.10.2018 (i.e., one day of alleged accident). So as on the date of accident this respondent is not issued any policy.
26. The insurer has produced the copy of the insurance policy marked at Ex.R2. On careful perusal of this document, it is worth to note herein that the policy was issued on 23.10.2018 and it covers from 24.10.2018 00:00 Hours to midnight of 23.10.2019. This document further indicates that the policy has been signed at Mumbai on dated 23.10.2018. It is pertinent note herein that the entire document does not revels that the 2nd respondent has issued a new policy. There are no reference about earlier company policy details. It means the 1 st respondent has not a new customer to 2 nd respondent. The contract between insurer and insured is governed by the provisions of the SCCH-25 19 MVC No.2186/2019 Insurance Act, 1938. For resolving the controversy issue involved in the present case, it is worthwhile to extract Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, which reads thus :
64-VB. No risk to be assumed unless premium is received in advance: 1) No insurer shall assume any risk in India in respect of any insurance business on which premium is not ordinarily payable outside India unless and until the premium payable is received by him or is guaranteed to be paid by such person in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed or unless and until deposit of such amount as may be prescribed, is made in advance in the prescribed manner. (2) For the purposes of this section, in the case of risks for which premium can be ascertained in advance, the risk may be assumed not earlier than the date on which the premium has been paid in cash or by cheque to the insurer.
Explanation.--Where the premium is tendered by postal money order or cheque sent by post, the risk may be assumed on the date on which the money order is booked or the cheque is posted, as the case may be.
(3) Any refund of premium which may become due to an insured on account of the cancellation of a policy or alteration in its terms and conditions or otherwise shall be paid by the insurer directly to the insured by a crossed or order cheque or by postal money order and a proper receipt shall be obtained by the insurer SCCH-25 20 MVC No.2186/2019 from the insured, and such refund shall in no case be credited to the account of the agent. (4) Where an insurance agent collects a premium on a policy of insurance on behalf of an insurer, he shall deposit with, or dispatch by post to, the insurer, the premium so collected in full without deduction of his commission within twenty-four hours of the collection excluding bank and postal holidays.
(5) The Central Government may, by rules, relax the requirements of sub-section (1) in respect of particular categories of insurance policies. (6) The Authority may, from time to time, specify, by the regulations made by it, the manner of receipt of premium by the insurer.]
27. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya [(2006) 5 SCC 192] dealt with regard to terms of a contract of insurance would depend upon the volition of the parties. At para 15, it is held that "15. The terms of a contract of insurance would depend upon the volition of the parties. A contract of insurance is governed by the provisions of the Insurance Act. In terms of the provisions of the Insurance Act, an insured is bound to pay premium which is to be calculated in the manner provided for therein. With a view SCCH-25 21 MVC No.2186/2019 to minimise his liability, an employer can contract out so as to make the insurer not liable as regards indemnifying him in relation to certain matters which do not strictly arise out of the mandatory provisions of any statute. Contracting out, as regards payment of interest by an employer, therefore, is not prohibited in law."
28. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held in the the decision reported in 2 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 5456 : (2021) 2 KCCR 1591 : (2021) 1 AIR Kant R 385 : 2021 AAC 216 : (2021) 2 Kant LJ 663 : 2021 ACJ 2537 held in paragraph No. 21 to 23 that "21. Further this Court in the judgment between The Divisional Manager v. Sri Basavaraj in MFA N.21737/2011 connected MFA Nos. 21738/2011 and MFA No. 23612/2009 were pleased to hold that the risk as per Insurance Policy commences from the time of payment of premium. In the facts and circumstances in the above cited case, the premium was paid at 15.34 hours on 02.12.2003 and the policy was issued with effect from 00.00 hours on 03.12.2003 (mid night). Therefore, on that factual matrix involved as per the documents placed regarding time of payment of premium is concerned, 2 Sudharshan Vs Subash and Another SCCH-25 22 MVC No.2186/2019 the accident was taken place at 1.00 pm on 02.12.2003 and subsequently at 15.34 hours on 02.12.2003 premium was paid. Therefore, under these facts and circumstances that before the time of making payment of premium the accident was caused. Therefore, it was held the insurer is not liable to pay compensation.
22. Therefore, this ratio laid down as discussed above, the risk is covered from the time of payment of premium as per the contract of insurance between the insurer and insured. In Sobin Iakai's case (supra) the propositions of law based on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court is culled out by Gauhati High Court and which is reflected in para 8 in the said case and it is also observed that the culling out of propositions of law made by the Gauhati High Court is correct and the said propositions of law as culled out and is reflected at para 8 in the said judgment is reproduced as under:
--
"8. The appellant Company, being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, filed M.A.(F) No. 4 (SH) of 1998 before the Shilong Bench of the Gauhati High Court. The High Court noticed the pleadings and referred to the decided cases of this Court. The High Court, after discussing the various judgments of this Court, culled out the following propositions of law: "(i) If time is mentioned in the insurance SCCH-25 23 MVC No.2186/2019 policy or cover-note, the effectivness of the policy would start from that time and date and not from an earlier point of time;
(ii) If the accident takes place on that very date before the time which is mentioned in the insurance policy, the insurer will not be liable to indemnify the insured;
(iii) If the time is not mentioned in the insurance policy, it would commence from the date which means midnight and in case the accident occurred on the date of taking the policy, the insurer will be liable to meet the liability of the insured under the award."
29. In the present case, the accident was caused on 07.05.2008 at 1.30 p.m. Ex. P11 is the Insurance Certificate which states commencement of the period of Insurance Policy from 00.00 hours on 08.05.2008 for next 12 months. It is contended that on 07.05.2008 itself during office hours starting from 10.00 am the premium was paid. It is contended that soon after commencement of office hours of the Insurance Company the appellant/owner has paid premium after insurance officials inspecting the vehicle which was found to be fit in condition and then the insurance agent processed the documents and for processing the documents some time is SCCH-25 24 MVC No.2186/2019 taken therefore quite naturally in the Insurance Policy it is said that commencing from 00.00 hours on 08.05.2008. Therefore, just because the Insurance Policy commences from 00.00 hours on 08.05.2008 that does not mean that the risk is covered from that time 00.00 hours on 08.05.2008 itself because so far as the time of commencement of Insurance certificate there is no specific contract between owner and the Insurance Company in the present case. Therefore, whatever the commencement of time is made in Ex. P.11 is a general term as put by the Insurance Company on every policies in absence of contract of mentioning specific time. Therefore, that alone cannot be made for treating the commencement of the risk from 00.00 hours on 08.05.2008 considering the facts and circumstances involved into the case on 07.05.2008 itself during the day time soon after commencement of the office hours premium is paid by the owner."
30. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Our Hon'ble High Court is aptly applicable to the case on hand. As such, whatever the commencement of time is made in Ex.R2 is a general term as put by the Insurance Company on SCCH-25 25 MVC No.2186/2019 every policies in absence of contract of mentioning specific time. Therefore, that alone cannot be made for treating the commencement of the risk from 00.00 hours on24.10.2018 considering the facts and circumstances involved into the case on 23.10.2018 itself during the day time soon after commencement of the office hours premium is paid by the owner. So, I cannot exonerate the insurance company from paying the compensation.
31.APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION:
The claimants No.1 to 5 are being the wife, minor children and father and mother of the deceased. Hence, they are entitled for 40:15:15:15:15 ratio respectively in the total compensation with accrued interest. On deposit of compensation, the claimant No.1 is entitled to withdraw 50% of their share and remaining share shall be invested as FD in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years. The entire share amount of the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 shall be invested as FD in any nationalized bank till they attain the age of majority. The petitioner No.4 and 5 are entitled to withdraw the entire share by considering their age. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 partly in Affirmative.SCCH-25 26 MVC No.2186/2019
32. Issue No.4:- In view of my findings to the above issues, the claimants are entitled for the compensation at the at rate of 6% P.A. from the respondent No.1. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The claim petition filed by claimants under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is allowed in part.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay total compensation to the tune of Rs.27,56,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand Only) together interest @ 6% P.A from the date of petition till realization.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and directed to deposit the same within 60 days from the date of this judgment, after deducting any amount paid as the interim compensation The petitioner No.1 to 5 are entitled for 40:15:15:15:15 ratio SCCH-25 27 MVC No.2186/2019 respectively in the total compensation with accrued interest.
On deposit of compensation,
the claimant No.1 is entitled to
withdraw 50% of her share and
remaining share shall be invested as FD in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years.
The entire share amount of the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 shall be invested as FD in any nationalized bank till they attain the age of majority and The entire share amount of the petitioner Nos.4 & 5 shall be released in their names through e-payment.
All the interim application if any pending stands disposed off.
The advocate fee of Rs.1,000/-
fixed.
Draw Decree accordingly.
(Directly typed and computerized by the stenographer, corrected by me and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 1st day of August, 2025).
(Raghavendra. R.) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, Bangalore.
SCCH-25 28 MVC No.2186/2019ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the Petitioner/s:
PW.1 : Smt. Pramila Bai List of documents exhibited for the Petitioner/s:
Ex.P1 Death certificate
Ex.P2 Certified copy of FIR with complaint
Ex.P3 Certified copy of Inquest mahazar
Ex.P4 Certified copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P5 Certified copy of Spot sketch
Ex.P6 Certified copy of Statement of witnesses
4 in nos
Ex.P7 Certified copy of PM report
Ex.P8 Certified copy of Wound certificate
Ex.P9 Certified copy of IMV report with 8
photos and PF
Ex.P10 Certified copy of Spot mahazar
Ex.P11 Notarized copies of Adhaar cards
(compared with originals and same are returned.) List of witnesses examined for the respondent/s:
RW.1 Smt. Anagha G.R. List of documents exhibited for the Respondent/s:
Ex.R.1 GPA
Ex.R.2 Copy of Policy
(Raghavendra. R.)
XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT,
Bangalore.
Digitally signed by
RAMACHANDRAPPA
RAMACHANDRAPPA RAGHAVENDRA
RAGHAVENDRA
Date: 2025.08.04
17:20:44 +0530