Bangalore District Court
Sharanamma vs Subburaj.P on 4 July, 2025
SCCH-08 1 MVC No.5868/2019
KABC020247182019
IN THE COURT OF XII ADDL. SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
(SCCH-08)
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JULY - 2025
PRESENT: Smt. Kannika M.S.
M.A. LL.B,
XII ADDL. SCJ & ACJM
MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU.
M.V.C. No.5868/2019
Petitioner/s: 1. Smt. Sharanamma,
W/o. Late Sanganagouda,
Aged about 35 years,
Residing at No.6/241/3,
Ambika Pettamma,
Doddabommasandra,
Vidyaranyapur Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 097
2. Sri. Shidramappa Gotagunaki,
S/o. Late Basappa,
Aged about 66 years,
3. Smt. Bhimabai S. Gotagunaki,
W/o. Shidramappa,
Aged about 56 years,
Both No.2 and 3 residing at
SCCH-08 2 MVC No.5868/2019
At-Solawadagi,
Post Byakod,
Taluk-Basavana Bagewadi,
Dist-Vijayapur.
(By Sri/Smt. R.B. Patil, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondent/s: 1. Sri. Subburaj P.,
S/o. Perumal,
Residing at No.57/3C,
Sundaravelpuram West,
Tuticorin,
Thoothukkudi - 628002,
Tamil Nadu.
(R.C. Owner of the Lorry No.TN-69-
Q-5510)
Exparte
2. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance
Co., Ltd.,
Regional Office,
Sri Shanthi Towers,
No.141, 5th Floor, III Main,
East to NGEF Layout,
Kasturinagar,
Bangalore - 560043.
(Insurer of Lorry bearing Reg.
No.TN-69-Q-5510)
(I/P. No.HAIJP22P400/28695761)
Valid from 25.08.2017 to
24.08.2018)
(By Sri. S. Maheswara, Advocate)
SCCH-08 3 MVC No.5868/2019
Date of institution : 26.09.2019
Nature of the Case : Seeking Compensation/Award
Date of commencement of : 16.11.2021
Recording of evidence
Date of Judgment : 04.07.2025
pronounced
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, claiming the compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- from the respondents with regard to the death of Sanganagouda, in the road traffic accident that took place on 07.04.2018.
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioners as follows:
On 07.04.2018 at about 1.00 a.m., when deceased Sanganagouda S. Kotagunaki and his family along with friends were proceeding in a Toyota Innova car bearing Reg. No.KA-0-MA- 2400 which was driven by the deceased and when they reached near Crematorium, Government Seed Farm, Koviloor, on Rajapalyam-Tenakasi main road, at that time a lorry bearing bearing No.TN-69-Q-5510 driven by its driver came with very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and dashed to the car, caused the accident, due to which they sustained grievous injuries and the deceased and other inmates succumbed to the injuries on the spot.SCCH-08 4 MVC No.5868/2019
It is contended that, immediately after the accident, deceased was shifted to Government hospital, Rajapalyam, wherein post- mortem was conducted and dead body was handed over to the petitioners and they have performed the last rites and obsequies of the deceased by spending huge amount towards funeral expenses.
It is stated that the deceased was hale and healthy and was working as technician at BMTC Depot No.30 and earning Rs.28,382/- per month. The deceased was the only bread earner of their family and due to his death, the petitioners are undergoing deep mental shock and agony and facing great financial difficulties.
It is further averred that the accident in question was due to the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending Lorry bearing Reg. No.TN-69-Q-5510. Hence, the 1 st respondent being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
3. Inspite of service of summons, the respondent No.1 remained absent, hence he was placed expared. On service of notice, respondent No.2 appeared before the court through its counsel and filed objection statement.
4. The 1st respondent in its objection statement has denied all the petition averments and contended that the petition itself is not maintainable either on facts or law. It has denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased. It has also denied the amount spent towards the funeral expenses of the deceased.Owner of the vehicle and the jurisdictional police have not complied SCCH-08 5 MVC No.5868/2019 section 134(C)and 158(6) of M.V. Act. It has contended that the driver of the car bearing Reg. No. KA-02-MA-2400 was driving the said vehicle without valid driving licence and therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation. It has admitted the issuance of policy in respect of the lorry bearing Reg. No. TN-69-Q-5510 and contended that, if there is any liability it is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, valid and effective driving licence held by the driver of the lorry, valid R.C., permit and F.C. The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and lorry driver was not made as a party to the proceedings. Further the jurisdictional police have registered the case against the deceased stating that he was solely negligent in causing the accident and also after thorough investigation have filed charge sheet against the driver of the car/deceased alleging his rash and negligent act in occurrence of the accident. Being a tortfeasor one cannot claim for his own negligence. The compensation and interest claimed by the petitioners are excessive and exorbitant. Hence on all these grounds, it has sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. Based on the pleadings, my predecessor in office has framed following issues:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased Sri. Sanganagouda has died in the road traffic accident occurred on 07.04.2018 at about 1.00 a.m. near Crematorium, Government Seed Farm, Koviloor, on Rajapalyam-Tenakasi main road, due to the rash and SCCH-08 6 MVC No.5868/2019 negligent driving by the drivers of the Toyota Innova car bearing Reg. No.KA-02-MA-2400 and Lorry bearing Reg.
No.TN-69-Q-5510 ?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
3. What order or Award?
6. In order to prove the case, 1 st petitioner got examined herself as PW.1 and examined one witness as PW.2 and got marked 50 documents as per Ex.P1 to 50. On the other hand, respondent No.2 has examined one witness as RW.1, but not got marked any documents.
7. Heard the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents, and perused the documents on record.
8. My findings on the above issues as under:-
Issue No.1 ... In the Negative,
Issue No.2 ... Does not survive for consideration,
Issue No.3 ... As per final order
For the following:
REASONS
9. ISSUE NO.1: It is the case of the petitioners that, on 07.04.2018 at about 1.00 a.m., when deceased Sanganagouda S. Kotagunaki and his family along with friends were proceeding in a Toyota Innova car bearing Reg. No.KA-0-MA-2400 which was driven SCCH-08 7 MVC No.5868/2019 by the deceased and when they reached near Crematorium, Government Seed Farm, Koviloor, on Rajapalyam-Tenakasi main road, at that time a lorry bearing bearing No.TN-69-Q-5510 driven by its driver came with very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and dashed to the car, caused the accident, due to which they sustained grievous injuries and the deceased and other inmates succumbed to the injuries on the spot. It is specifically urged that, the accident happened because of the rash and negligent act of the Lorry driver and as such the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
10. In order to substantiate the contentions of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 stepped into the witness box and filed her affidavit-in-lieu of oral examination-in-chief as PW1 and got marked F.I.R, F.I.S, Spot Mahazar, Sketch, Charge Sheet, IMV Report, Policy, B-Register Extract, PM report, Inquest Report and Death certificate as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. On the other hand, respondent No.2 has examined its Manager as RW.1.
11. At the outset, is it pertinent to note that, the date, time and place of accident, involvement of Lorry bearing No.TN-69-Q- 5510 in the accident and issuance of insurance policy in favour of the respondent No.1 with respect to said vehicle and its validity as on the date of accident, are not in dispute. Further, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners has remained un-challenged by the owner of Lorry bearing No.TN-69-Q-
SCCH-08 8 MVC No.5868/20195510 i.e. respondent No.1, as he did not choose to appear and contest the case of the petitioners.
12. 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 as in a criminal case are not required."
13. 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."
14. It is pertinent to note that, admittedly, on the alleged date, time and place of accident, the deceased proceeding from Kerala towards Rajapalyam on Rajapalyam-Tenkasi main road. Ex.P1 is the complaint which is lodged by the driver of the lorry P.Ramakrishnan alleging that the driver of the Innova car bearing Reg.No.KA-02-MA-2400 has driven the car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their lorry. Ex.P2 is the FIS which is SCCH-08 9 MVC No.5868/2019 lodged on the date of accident itslef. The Ex.P.4 sketch and Ex.P.3 spot-mahazer clearly speaks that, the said accident has occurred on extreme right side of 30 feet wide Tenkasi-Rajapalyam main road, near crematorium, Govt. Seed Farm, Koviloor the accident has taken place. This clearly goes to show that, the deceased Sanganagouda S. Gotagunaki drove his car bearing No.KA-02-MA- 2400 from left side to right side of the road and dashed to the oncoming Lorry bearing No.TN-69-Q-5510. With regard to rash and negligent driving of deceased, the investigation officer in his final report/charge-sheet, which is marked as Ex.P. 5 has clearly stated that, the said accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased Sanganagouda S. Gotagunaki.
15. On meticulously going through the police documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 8, prima-facie it reveals that, the alleged accident has taken place due to self rash and negligent driving of the deceased Sanganagouda S. Gotagunaki. on 07.04.2018 at about 1.00 a.m, on Tenkasi-Rajapalyam main road, near crematorium, Govt. Seed Farm, Koviloor drove his car bearing No.KA-02-MA-2400 in high speed and in rash and negligent manner, from left side to right side of the road and dashed to the oncoming Lorry bearing No.TN-69-Q-5510 and sustained grievous injuries on his head and other parts of his body and succumbed to said injuries. Admittedly, the Ex.P.5 final report/charge-sheet has not been challenged by the petitioners or any other legal heirs of the deceased Sanganagouda S. Gotagunaki. In order prove that, the SCCH-08 10 MVC No.5868/2019 said accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing No.TN-69-Q-5510 and the Ex.P5 final report/charge- sheet submitted by the investigation officer is false, the petition though claims that she was there along with her husband at the time of accident, in her cross-examination stated that, she was not having conscious at the time of accident also admits that contents of the Ex.P2 which was the complaint is correct. Further, she has pleaded her ignorance to the suggestion made to her that and, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of car.
16. As the petitioners have filed the present petition under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the proof of negligence is essential to maintain the claim petition for compensation. In the instant case, except the self serving statements of the petitioner No.1/P.W.1, there is absolutely no other oral or documentary evidence placed on record to show that, the alleged accident is caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry vehicle bearing No.TN-69-Q-5510. Even, nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of R.W.1, with respect to same. The petitioners have failed to prove through cogent and corroborative evidence that, the Ex.P.5 final report/charge-sheet filed by the investigation officer is false. Admittedly, the Ex.P.5 final report/charge-sheet has not been challenged by the petitioners or any other legal heirs of the deceased Sanganagouda S. Gotagunaki and also not filed private complaint regarding to the complaint, if SCCH-08 11 MVC No.5868/2019 there is no negligence on their part prudent man cannot sit silently without taken other legal remedies available under the preview of the law. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the final report filed by the investigation officer and hold that, the said accident is caused due to rash negligent driving of the deceased driver of car bearing No.KA-02-MA-2400. It is settled principle of law that, the tort-feasor cannot be third party and he is not entitled for any compensation under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The liability to pay compensation to the injured or to the legal heirs of the victim is envisaged only in cases where such injury or death was caused because of tortuous act committed by another. In the instant case, the death of driver of car is caused on account of his own act of rashness and negligence, as such the claim of the petitioners is not maintainable.
17. Therefore, for the above stated reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioners have failed to prove through cogent and corroborative evidence that, the deceased Sanganagouda S. Gotagunaki has succumbed to the injuries sustained in vehicular accident occurred on 07.04.2018, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry vehicle bearing Reg. No. TN-69-Q-5510. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in Negative.
18. Issue No.2: While answering above issue, for the reasons stated therein, this Court has come to conclusion that, the petitioners have failed to prove through cogent and corroborative SCCH-08 12 MVC No.5868/2019 evidence that, the deceased Sanganagouda S. Gotagunaki has succumbed to the injuries sustained in vehicular accident occurred on 07.04.2018, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing Reg. No. TN-69-Q-5510. When the petitioners have failed to prove that, the deceased Sanganagouda S. Gotagunaki has succumbed to injuries sustained in an accident caused due to negligent act of the driver of Lorry vehicle bearing Reg. No. TN-69-Q-5510, the question of holding the owner and insurer of said vehicle liable to pay the compensation to the legal heirs of deceased i.e. petitioners, under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, does not arise at all.
19. Further it is made clear that, no doubt it is settled principle of law that, the claimants can seek for amendment of petition for conversion of petition filed under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to petition under Sec.163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which allows the claimant to claim compensation without proving the negligent act of the driver or owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. Once it is established that, the death or permanent disablement has occurred during the use of the vehicle and the said vehicle is insured, the insurance company or the owner, as the case may be, shall be liable to pay the compensation to the claimant or the legal heirs of deceased. But, in the instant case, the petitioners have not taken any such steps for conversion of petition filed under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to petition under Sec.163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
SCCH-08 13 MVC No.5868/2019Further, the petition under Sec.163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is maintainable only if the annual income of the victim is less than Rs.40,000/-. In the instant case, the petition and the examination- in-chief affidavit of P.W.1 itself discloses that, the income of the deceased as on the date of death was Rs.28,382/- per month, which will be around Rs.3,40,584/- per annum. In such circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to claim compensation even under Sec.163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others V/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda, reported in AIR 2004 SC 2107, has clearly held that, "If a person invokes provisions of Sec.163A, the annual income of Rs.40,000/- per annum shall be treated as a cap. It was held that, provisions of Sec.163A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose annual income was upto Rs.40,000/- could take the benefit of Sec.163-A and all other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicles Act."
21. Therefore, in the light of observations made in the above cited decision and for the reasons stated supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioners are not entitled for compensation as prayed for. Hence, I answer Issue No.2 in Negative.
SCCH-08 14 MVC No.5868/201922. Issue No.3: In view of the above findings, I proceed to pass the following order ORDER The petition is dismissed with costs.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 4th day of July 2025) KANNIKA Digitally signed by KANNIKA M S MS Date: 2025.07.09 17:15:34 +0530 (Kannika M.S.) XII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Smt. Sharanamma P.W.2 : Smt. Premalatha
Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P.1 & 1(a) FIR and its translated copy Ex.P.2 & 2(a) First Information Statement and its translated copy Ex.P.3 & 3(a) Spot Mahazar and its translated copy Ex.P.4 & 4(a) Sketch and its translated copy Ex.P.5 & 5(a) Charge Sheet and its translated copy SCCH-08 15 MVC No.5868/2019 Ex.P6 IMV Report Ex.P7 Insurance policy of car Ex.P8 B-Register extract Ex.P.9 & 9(a) Inquest report and its translated copy Ex.P.10 & PM report and its translated copy 10(a) Ex.P.11 Death Certificate Ex.P.12 Notarized copy of Adhaar card of deceased Ex.P.13 ID card of deceased issued by BMTC Ex.P.14 Ration card Ex.P.15 Driving licence Ex.P.16 & 17 Pay slips Ex.P.18 Authorisation letter Ex.P.19 Service register extract Ex.P.20 Leave register extract Ex.P.21 Personal information extract Ex.P.22 to 50 Pay-slips Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents:
DW.1: Sri. S. Narendran Documents marked on behalf of the respondents: None KANNIKA Digitally signed by KANNIKA M S MS Date: 2025.07.09 17:15:40 +0530 (Kannika M.S.) XII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member MACT, Bengaluru.