Bangalore District Court
Thippamma vs Hemavathi N on 9 June, 2025
KABC020025912024
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.480/2024
Dated this 9th day of June, 2025
Petitioners: 1. Thippamma W/o Ramaiah,
Aged 51 years,
2. Anuradha D/o Ramaiah W/o R.
Yathish Babu,
Aged 36 years,
R/at No.86, Gollageri,
Chamaraja Mohalla,
Mysore - 570 024.
3. Nagamani D/o Ramaiah W/o
Akamallraj T.,
Aged 35 years,
R/at Arlahalli, Kasaba Hobli,
Pavagada Taluk,
Tumkur District - 561 202.
4. Sathyalakshmi V. D/o Ramaiah W/o
Papegowda C.G.,
2 MVC No.480/2024
Aged 32 years,
R/at No.897, 1st Main Road,
Rajeshwari Nagar, near Rajeshwari
Temple, Laggere, Peenya Small
Industries, Bengaluru North,
Bengaluru - 560 058.
(Sri Manjappa, Advocate)
V/s
Respondents: 1. Hemavathi N. W/o Sundar Raj S.,
R/at No.11, 1st Main,
Azad Nagar, Chamarajpet,
Bengaluru - 560 018.
(Sri G. N. Subramani, Advocate)
2. The Manager,
Tata AIG General Ins. Co. Ltd.,
No.69, 2nd Floor, J.P. and Devi
Jambukeshava Arcade, Miller's
Road, Bengaluru - 52.
(Bolero Pickup goods vehicle
bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AN-2521,
Policy No.0176504335, covering
from 24-03-2023 to 23-03-2024)
(Sri Kiran Pujar, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- 3 MVC No.480/2024 from the respondents, on account of death of Ramaiah, who is husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners No.2 to 4, in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 06-01-2024 at about 4:55 p.m., the deceased Ramaiah was proceeding as pedestrian, infront of Bank of Baroda, Lakshmipura road, Madanayakanahalli, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru city. At that time, a Bolero Pick-up goods vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AN-2521, driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, came from behind (Madanayakanahalli towards Lakshmipura) and dashed against the deceased. Due to said impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Life Line Hospital, Madanayakanahalli, wherein he took first aid treatment and from there he was shifted to People Tree Hospital, Bengaluru. But, on the way to the said hospital he succumbed to the injuries. Earlier to the accident, the deceased was working as 4 MVC No.480/2024 an employee (attender) in Indira Gandhi Institute of Child Health, Autonomous Institute, near NIMHANS Hospital, Bengaluru and he was drawing salary of Rs.80,000/- per month. 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. The Madanayakanahalli Police have registered the case against the driver of the said goods vehicle for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C. 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 compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition and award compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- with interest.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the respondents No.1 and 2 have appeared through their counsel and filed their separate written statements. 5 MVC No.480/2024
4. The respondent No.1 in her written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. She has contended that, the Bolero Pick-up Goods vehicle bearing No.KA-01-AN- 2521 involved in the accident was insured with the respondent No.2 vide policy No.0176504335, valid from 24- 03-2023 to 23-03-2024. In the event of compensation awarded to the petitioners by this Tribunal, the respondent No.2 is statutorily liable to pay the said compensation amount. 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.
5. Whereas the respondent No.2 in its written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of goods vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AN-2521 in favour of respondent No.1 and its validity as on the date of accident. It seeks protection under Section 147 and 150(2) of Motor Vehicles Act. It has contended that, the petition is bad for non 6 MVC No.480/2024 compliance of provisions under Sections 134(c) and 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act. It has sought permission to contest even on behalf of respondent No.1, as per Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It has contended that, at the time of accident the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence and was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving licence. Further, the said vehicle was plying without valid permit. Thereby, the owner of vehicle has committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy and hence the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. Further it is contended that, the driver was driving his vehicle with all precautions, care and was observing all the rules and regulations prescribed by law. The deceased himself was negligent, he was proceeding without following the traffic rules and it resulted in the accident. It has denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased. It has denied the occurrence, mode of the accident and also actionable negligence of Goods vehicle bearing 7 MVC No.480/2024 No.KA-01-AN-2521. 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. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, deceased Ramaiah has succumbed to the injuries sustained in vehicular accident, alleged to have been occurred on 06-01-2024 at about 4.55 p.m., due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bolero Pick-up Goods Vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AN-
2521 ?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, what is the 8 MVC No.480/2024 quantum and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?
7. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.4 has got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked 28 documents as Ex.P.1 to 28. Further, they have got examined one more witness namely Prakash B.S., Office Superintendent and Nodel Office at Indira Gandhi Institute of Child Helath, Bengaluru, as P.W.2 and closed their side. On the other hand, the respondents No.1 and 2 have not adduced any evidence on their behalf.
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:
Issue No.1: Affirmative Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following:9 MVC No.480/2024
REASONS
10. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioners that, on 06-01-2024 at about 4:55 p.m., when the deceased Ramaiah was proceeding as pedestrian, infront of Bank of Baroda, Lakshmipura road, Madanayakanahalli, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru city, a Bolero Pick-up goods vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AN-2521, driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, came from Madanayakanahalli towards Lakshmipura and dashed against the deceased from behind. Due to said impact, the deceased has sustained grievous injuries all over the body and succumbed to said injuries on the way to People Tree Hospital, Bengaluru. Further it is contended that, earlier to the accident, the deceased was working as an employee (attender) in Indira Gandhi Institute of Child Health, Autonomous Institute, near NIMHANS Hospital, Bengaluru and he was drawing salary of Rs.80,000/- per month. He was contributing his entire 10 MVC No.480/2024 earnings to his family. Due to untimely death of a sole bread earner, the petitioners are struggling for their livelihood.
11. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.4 has got examined herself as P.W.1 by filing her 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 28 documents as Ex.P.1 to 28. Out of the said documents, Ex.P.1 is true copy of F.I.R., Ex.P.2 is true copy of first information statement, Ex.P.3 is true copy of spot mahazar and sketch, Ex.P.4 is true copy of inquest report, Ex.P.5 is true copy of post-mortem report, Ex.P.6 is true copy of notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act, Ex.P.7 is true copy of reply to the notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act, Ex.P.8 is true copy of Motor Vehicle Accident report, Ex.P.9 is true copy of MLC intimation, Ex.P.10 is true copy of charge-sheet, Ex.P.11 and 12 are notarized copy of memo (total 2), Ex.P.13 is notarized copy of identity card, 11 MVC No.480/2024 Ex.P.14 are true copy of pay slips from July 2023 to December 2023, Ex.P.15 is bank statement (total 9 pages), Ex.P.16 to 20 are notarized copy of Aadhar card of deceased and petitioners No.1 to 4, Ex.P.21 is notarized copy of ration card, Ex.P.22 is notarized copy of death certificate, Ex.P.23 is authorization letter, Ex.P.24 is true copy of appointment letter, Ex.P.25 is true copy of attendance register extract, Ex.P.26 is true copy of service register book, Ex.P.27 are salary slips (total 6) and Ex.P.28 is true copy of identity card.
12. On meticulously going through the above police documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 10, prima-facia it reveals that, the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Bolero Pick- up Goods vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AN-2521 and dashing the same to the deceased Ramaiah from behind, who was pedestrian on the left side of the said road. Further it reveals that, due to said impact the deceased has fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries on his stomach, 12 MVC No.480/2024 left hand, left leg and other parts of the body and succumbed to said injuries on the way to People Tree Hospital, Bengaluru. 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 driver of offending Bolero Pick-up Goods vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AN-2521 and the deceased Ramaiah has sustained grievous injuries in the said accident and succumbed to said injuries on the way to the hospital.
13. At the outset, is it pertinent to note that, in the present case, the date, time and place of accident, involvement of offending Bolero Pick-up Goods vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA- 01-AN-2521 in the said accident, issuance of insurance policy in favour of the respondent No.1 in respect of offending Bolero Pick-up Goods vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AN- 2521 and its validity as on the date of accident, are not in dispute. It is also not disputed that, the deceased was pedestrian at the time of accident. But, the respondent No.1 13 MVC No.480/2024 & 2 have specifically denied the above averred facts and circumstances of the accident and the respondent No.2 has taken specific defence that, at the time of alleged accident the driver of offending vehicle was driving his vehicle with all precautions and care, by observing all the traffic rules and regulations, but the deceased without following the traffic rules and regulations was proceeding on the said road and thereby he was solely responsible for the alleged accident. But, the respondent No.2 have failed to establish the said contentions. There is absolutely no evidence placed on record by the respondent No.2 to show that, the said accident has taken place due to negligence of the deceased himself and not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle. Even, the respondents have not stepped into witness box to depose the contentions taken in their written statement on oath. On the other hand, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners clearly establishes that, the said accident has 14 MVC No.480/2024 taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Bolero Pick-up Goods vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA- 01-AN-2521 and dashing the same to the deceased Ramaiah from, behind, who was pedestrian 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 her mouth which creates doubt on the veracity of her evidence or which establishes that, the said accident has taken place due to sole negligence of the deceased or there was any contributory negligence on his part in the cause of accident. The P.W.1 has unequivocally denied the suggestions made in her cross-examination that, the accident has taken place due to sole negligence of the deceased himself, as he was proceeding on the road negligently, without observing the traffic rules and regulations.
14. The Ex.P.3 spot mahazer and sketch clearly goes to show that, the said accident has taken place on the left side 15 MVC No.480/2024 of 30 feet wide Madanayakanahalli-Lakshmipura road, infront of Bank of Baroda, Lakshmipura road, Madanayakanahalli, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru City, due to dashing of offending goods vehicle to the deceased Ramaiah from behind, who was pedestrian on the said road. Further it is pertinent to note, as per Ex.P.8 Motor Vehicle Accident Report, the accident is not caused due to any mechanical defects in the vehicle involved in the accident. When the accident has not taken place due to the any mechanical defects in the offending vehicle and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased, 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.
15. Further, the Ex.P.5 Post-mortem report clearly speaks that, the deceased Ramaiah has died due to hypoglycemic shock due to injury to vital organ spleen caused due to road traffic accident. The investigation officer in his Ex.P.5 final 16 MVC No.480/2024 report/charge-sheet has clearly stated that, the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending goods vehicle bearing No.KA-01-AN-2521 and the deceased has sustained grievous injuries on his stomach, left leg, left hand and other parts of the body and succumbed to said injuries. 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 goods vehicle bearing No.KA-01-AN-2521 in the said accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle and injuries caused to deceased Ramaiah in the said accident and the cause of his death.
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 17 MVC No.480/2024 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 as 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 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 have successfully proved through cogent and corroborative 18 MVC No.480/2024 evidence that, the deceased Ramaiah has succumbed to grievous injuries sustained in motor vehicle accident, occurred on 06-01-2024 at about 4:55 p.m., infront of Bank of Baroda, Lakshmipura road, Madanayakanahalli, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bolero Pick-up Goods Vehicle bearing No.KA-01-AN-2521. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in Affirmative.
19. Issue No.2: While answering above issue, for the reasons stated therein, this Court has come to conclusion that, the petitioners have successfully proved through cogent and corroborative evidence that, the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bolero Pick-up Goods Vehicle bearing No.KA-01-AN-2521 and due to said impact the deceased Ramaiah has sustained grievous injuries all over the body and succumbed to said injuries. Now the petitioners are required to establish that, they are the legal representatives of the deceased. In this 19 MVC No.480/2024 regard, they have produced their respective Aadhar cards and Aadhar card of the deceased, ration card and death certificate, which are marked as Ex.P.16 to 22. The said documents clearly goes to show that, the petitioner No.1 is wife and petitioners No.2 to 4 are daughters of the deceased Ramaiah. On the other hand, the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased Ramaiah is not disputed by the respondents. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the documents produced by the petitioners and hold that, the petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased Ramaiah.
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 20 MVC No.480/2024 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."
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 21 MVC No.480/2024 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 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 income of the deceased. Hence, they are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of dependency. In order to calculate the loss of dependency, the first step is to determine the age and income of the deceased.
i) Age and income of the deceased: The petitioners have averred that, the age of deceased as on the date of accident was 56 years. To substantiate this point, the petitioners have produced the Aadhar card of the deceased, which is marked as Ex.P.16, wherein the date of birth of the 22 MVC No.480/2024 deceased is mentioned as 18-05-1967. Admittedly, the accident has taken place on 06-01-2024. Therefore, as on the date of accident the age of the deceased was about 57 years. The petitioners have stated that, as on the date of accident the deceased was hale and healthy and he was working as an employee (attender) in Indira Gandhi Institute of Child Health, Autonomous Institute, near NIMHANS Hospital, Bengaluru and he was drawing salary of Rs.80,000/- per month. To substantiate the same, they have produced the memo dated 16-02-2016 and 05-02-2008, identity card, pay slips for the month of July-2023 to December-2023 and bank statement as per Ex.P.11 to 15. They have also examined the Officer Superintendent and Nodal Office at Indira Gandhi Institute of Child Health as P.W.2. The P.W.2 has produced the true copy of appointment letter, attendance register extract, service register book and salary slips (total 6) as per Ex.P.24 to 27. From these documents it is clear that, as on the date of 23 MVC No.480/2024 accident, the deceased was working as Group-D employee at Indira Gandhi Institute of Child Health, Bengaluru and he was drawing gross salary of Rs.47,476/-. After deducting profession tax of Rs.200/-, the net monthly income of the deceased is considered as Rs.47,276/-. The annual income of the deceased Ramaiah is held at Rs.5,67,312/-.
ii) Future prospects: As per the ratio 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 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. In the present case, since the deceased was aged about 57 years and was a permanent employee, the future prospects would be 15% of his actual income, which comes to Rs.85,097/- per annum. Therefore, the future prospects of the deceased is held as Rs.85,097/- per annum. If this income is added to the actual income, then it comes to Rs.6,52,409/- per annum. 24 MVC No.480/2024
iii) The deduction of personal expenses and calculating the multiplier: The family of the deceased consist of 4 persons i.e., petitioners No.1 to 4. The total number of the dependents of the deceased are four. Therefore, deduction towards the personal expenses of deceased is taken as 1/4th of the total income, which comes to Rs.1,63,102/- per annum. After deducting 1/4th out of total income, towards the personal expenses of deceased, the annual income of the deceased is held as Rs.4,89,307/-.
iv) As on the date of death, the age of the deceased was 57 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 9.
v) The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Sharada and others, in MFA No.103819/2016 (MV), dated 21-04- 25 MVC No.480/2024 2021, relying on the judgment of Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in the case of Union of India and others V/s K.S. Lakshmi Kumar and others, reported in ILR 2000 KAR 3809, has held that, the split up method explained with illustration in the said judgment at paragraph No.16, as follows, has to be applied, "16. Where the multiplier applicable is higher than the number of years of service which the deceased had before superannuation, the contribution to the family (or loss of dependency) cannot obviously be calculated with the reference to the salary income, for the entire period of multiplier. Let us illustrate. If a person aged 56 years (whose age of superannuation is 60 years) dies in an accident, leaving behind him his surviving wife and two children, how should the total loss of dependency be calculated? Let us assume that his salary was Rs. 6,000.00 and after retirement, his pension would be Rs. 3,000.00. Under the Davies method accepted and adopted by the Supreme Court, the applicable multiplier will be '9'. But, deceased would have got salary income for only 4 years and then he would get only pension. If the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased is 26 MVC No.480/2024 one-third, the contribution to the family during the period of service (4 years period) would have been Rs. 4,000/- (that is Rs. 6000-2000). But, obviously the contribution to the family would not have been Rs. 4,000/- after his retirement, that is from the 5th year onwards. When the pension is Rs. 3,000/- per month, after deducting one-third as personal and living expenses, the contribution to the family will only to be Rs. 2,000/- per month. Therefore, the loss of dependency cannot be taken as Rs. 4,000/- per month for the entire period of 9 years representing the multiplier. It has to be taken as Rs. 4,000/- per month for the first four years (when he would have been in service) and Rs. 2,000/- per month for the remaining five years (when he would have received pension). The method adopted in the above illustration will have to be applied in this case."
vi) Accordingly, the loss of dependency has to be considered with the full salary of Rs.4,89,307/- per annum for three years, which works out to Rs.4,89,307 x 3 x 3/4 = 11,00,941/- and for the remaining 6 years, 50% of Rs.4,89,307/- has to be considered, which works out to Rs.2,44,653.5 x 6 x 3/4 = 11,00,941/-. Thus, the total loss of 27 MVC No.480/2024 dependency would be Rs.11,00,941 + 11,00,941 = 22,01,882/-.
vii) Compensation under conventional heads: In the present case, admittedly the petitioner No.1 is wife and petitioners No.2 to 4 are daughters of deceased Ramaiah. Hence, the petitioners No.1 to 4 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:
a) Loss of estate - Rs. 15,000/-
b) Loss of consortium - Rs. 40,000/- each
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 28 MVC No.480/2024 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 to 4 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. 22,01,882-00
2. Loss of spousal and Rs. 1,92,000-00
parental consortium
3. Loss of estate Rs. 18,000-00
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000-00
Total Rs. 24,29,882-00
24. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in the case of Chandrakala W/o Lokesh V/s Dilipkumar M. A. S/o Amasaiah, in MFA No.1662/2023 (MV-D), dated 02-07- 2024, has clearly held that, "Since the amount due under the head loss of future prospects is yet to become due, it 29 MVC No.480/2024 would be illogical and illegal to direct the insurance company to pay interest on loss of future prospects."
25. Therefore, in the light of ratio laid down in the above cited decisions and for the above stated reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.24,29,882/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petition till its realization (excluding interest on future prospects amount of Rs.85,097/- x 3 x 3/4 = Rs.1,91,468/- and Rs.42,548.5 x 6 x 3/4 = Rs.1,91,468/-. Thus, the total future prospects amount would be Rs.1,91,468 + 1,91,468 = 3,82,936/-).
26. 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 vehicle. To establish the same the petitioners have produced true copy of reply given by the owner of offending vehicle, to the notice issued by the investigation officer under Sec.133 of Motor Vehicles Act, 30 MVC No.480/2024 which is marked as Ex.P.7. As per the said document, the driver of offending vehicle by name Kumar K.N.C. S/o Late Narayan Rao K., was holding valid and effective driving licence bearing No.KA0120040009391 to drive the said vehicle, as on the date of accident and the said vehicle was insured by respondent No.2 insurance company, vide Policy No.0176504335, valid from 24-03-2023 to 23-03-2024. Further, the evidence placed on record by the petitioners clearly establishes that, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Bolero Pick-up Goods Vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-01-AN-2521, the accident in question has occurred and the deceased Ramaiah has succumbed to the grievous 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 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 31 MVC No.480/2024 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 petitioner. Therefore, for the above stated reasons, holding that, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.24,29,882/- from the respondent No.2, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization (excluding interest on future prospects amount of Rs.3,82,936), I answer Issue No.2 in Partly Affirmative.
27. Issue No.3: In view of the above findings, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.24,29,882/- (Rupees twenty four lakh twenty nine thousand eight hundred and eighty two only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the 32 MVC No.480/2024 date of petition till realisation (excluding interest on future prospects amount of Rs.3,82,936).
The respondents 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 compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
The above compensation amount is apportioned as follows:
Petitioner No.1 - Wife - 40% Petitioner No.2 - Daughter - 20% Petitioner No.3 - Daughter - 20% Petitioner No.4 - Daughter - 20% Out of total compensation amount awarded in favour of petitioners No.1 to 4, 40% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be 33 MVC No.480/2024 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.
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 9th day of June, 2025) (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners P.W.1: Sathyalakshmi D/o Ramaiah W/o Papegowda C.G. P.W.2: Prakash B.S. S/o Basappa Documents marked on behalf of petitioners Ex.P.1: True copy of F.I.R.
Ex.P.2: True copy of First Information Statement Ex.P.3: True copy of Spot Mahazar and Sketch 34 MVC No.480/2024 Ex.P.4: True copy of Inquest Report Ex.P.5: True copy of Post-mortem Report Ex.P.6: True copy of Notice under Section 133 of M.V. Act Ex.P.7: True copy of Reply to Notice under Section 133 of M.V. Act Ex.P.8: True copy of M.V.A. Report Ex.P.9: True copy of MLC Intimation Ex.P.10: True copy of Charge-sheet Ex.P.11: Notarized copy of Memo dated 16-02-2016 Ex.P.12: Notarized copy of Memo dated 05-02-2008 Ex.P.13: Notarized copy of ID Card Ex.P.14: Salary Slips for the month of July-2023 to December 2023 Ex.P.15: Notarized copy of Bank Statement (total 9 pages) Ex.P.16: Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of Deceased
Ex.P.17 to Notarized copy of Aadhar Cards of 20: Petitioners No.1 to 4 Ex.P.21: Notarized copy of Ration Card Ex.P.22: Notarized copy of Death Certificate Ex.P.23: Authorization Letter Ex.P.24: True copy of Appointment Letter dated 06-
12-2005
Ex.P.25: True copy of Attendance Register Extract
Ex.P.26: True copy of Service Register Book
Ex.P.27: Salary Slips (total 6)
Ex.P.28: True copy of Identity Card
35 MVC No.480/2024
Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents
- Nil -
Documents marked on behalf of respondents
- Nil -
(Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.