Bangalore District Court
Shanmugam .K vs Naveen Kumar .M on 17 July, 2025
KABC020362482022
BEFORE THE COURT OF I ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM &
MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
(SCCH-11)
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY - 2025
PRESENT: SRI.NARENDRA.B.R., B.Sc, L.L.B.
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM
& MEMBER - MACT
MVC No.6832/2022
PETITIONERS:
Sri.Shanmugam.K.,
S/o.Kalimuthu,
Died on 05.10.2023, His legal
heirs and
W.Helen Mary, W/o.Lt.Shanmugam.K,
LR 1(a) died on 27.05.2024.
1(a). Shanmugapriya.S.,
D/o.Late.K.Shanmugam,
Aged about 22 years,
1(b). Karan.S.,
S/o.Late.K.Shanmugam,
Aged about 20 years,
1(d). Dharshani.S.,
D/o.Late.K.Shanumugam,
Aged about 14 years,
SCCH-11 2 MVC.No.6832/2022
Since 1(d) minor, Rep. By her
sister & Natural Guardian,
Shanmugapriya.S.1(b)
All are R/at: No.198,
New Oriental Line,
Coromandal, KGF,
Bangarpet, Kolar - 563118.
(By Sri.Raviteja, Adv.)
-Versus-
RESPONDENTS:
1. Sri.Naveen Kumar.M.,
S/o.Muni Venkata Reddy,
No.45, 5th A Cross, 12th Main Road,
NRI Layout, 2nd Phase,
T.C.Palya Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560016.
Main Road, K.M.Garden,
Ramamurthy.
(RC Owner of the Lorry bearing
No.KA-01-AJ-8226).
2. ICICI Lombard General Ins Co Ltd.,
No.121, "The Estate", 9th Floor,
Dickenson Road, M.G.Road,
Bengaluru - 560042.
(Policy No.3008/227050959/01/000
Valid from 15.09.2022 to
14.09.2023).
(Resp.No.1 - Exparte)
(Resp.No.2 - By Sri.L.S.Renukappa, Adv.)
SCCH-11 3 MVC.No.6832/2022
J U D G M E N T
This claim petition is filed by the
petitioners claiming compensation of ₹.95,00,000/-
with interest from the date of petition till its
realization for the death of Sri.Shanmugam K. S/o
Kalimuthu in the road traffic accident.
2. The petition averments in brief is that on
30.09.2022 at about 05.30 p.m., when the deceased
was returning to the house by walk on extreme left
side of Hebbal Ring Road, near Hebbal Circle,
Bengaluru City, a Lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-01-AJ-
8226, driven by its driver at high speed in a rash
and negligent manner, dashed against deceased
petitioner resulting in accident. Due to said
accident, the deceased fell down and sustained
grievous injuries to head. Thereafter, deceased was
shifted to Bengaluru Baptist Hospital, wherein he
took treatment as an inpatient and spent a sum of
SCCH-11 4 MVC.No.6832/2022
₹.16,00,000/- towards treatment, medicine,
conveyance and other incidental expenses.
Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale
and healthy and was a Multi Technician, Technical
Supervisor at M/s. ISS Facility Services India Pvt.
Ltd. and drawing a salary of ₹.27,000/- per month.
Due to the death of deceased, the petitioners lost
the bread earning member of the family and put
mental agony. The accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of lorry by its driver. The
respondent No.1 & 2, being the owner and insurer of
the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally
liable to pay compensation to petitioners.
3. In spite of service of notice, 1 st respondent
did not appear before the tribunal and hence, he
has been placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2 appeared
before the tribunal through the counsel and filed
the written statement.
SCCH-11 5 MVC.No.6832/2022
4. In the Written Statement, the respondent
No.2 has denied the contents of claim petition
specifically and categorically. The respondent No.2
also denied age, occupation and income of deceased
as well as place, time and manner of accident.
Further the respondent No.2 contended that the
petition filed by the petitioners is not
maintainable either in law or on facts and same is
liable to be dismissed. Further contended that the
second respondent lorry was not caused the alleged
accident. Further the lorry was not at all involved
in the alleged accident and vehicle has been
implanted for the purpose of compensation. Further
contended that as on the date of accident, the
driver of the lorry had no valid driving license.
The amount claimed by petitioners is highly
exorbitant. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
SCCH-11 6 MVC.No.6832/2022
5. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned
predecessor in office has framed the following:
Issues
1. Whether petitioners prove that they
are the Legal Heirs of deceased?
2. Whether petitioners prove that the
husband of petitioner No.1(a), father of
petitioner No.1(b to d) namely
Sri.Shanmugam.K succumbed to the injuries
sustained in the accident that took place
on 30.09.2022 at about 05.30 p.m., while
he was walking on the extreme left side
of Hebbal Ring Road, Near Hebbal Circle,
Bengaluru as a pedestrian, due to the
rash and negligent driving of Lorry
bearing Regn.No.KA-01-AJ-8226 by its
driver?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled
for compensation? If so, how much and
from whom?
4. What order or award?
6. In order to substantiate the contention of
the petition, the Petitioner No.1(b)/daughter of
deceased got examined herself as PW.1, Medical
Record Technician at Bengaluru Baptist Hospital got
examined as PW.2 and H R Assistant Manager at ISS
SCCH-11 7 MVC.No.6832/2022
Facility Services India Pvt. Ltd., examined as PW.3
and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.35 and
closed their side of evidence. The respondent
insurance company examined its Legal Manager as
RW.1 and got marked document at Ex.R.1 and closed
his side of evidence.
7. Heard arguments of both side and perused
the materials available on records.
8. This Tribunal answers the above issues as
below:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.3: Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.4: As per final order,
for the following:
//REASONS//
9. Issue No.1:- It is the contention of the
Petitioners that petitioner No.1(b) to 1(d) being
SCCH-11 8 MVC.No.6832/2022
the children of deceased have filed this claim
petition claiming compensation for death of
Sri.Shanmugam.K and they are the legal heirs of the
deceased. In proof of said contention, the
petitioners produced Ex.P.2 i.e., Notarized copy of
Aadhaar cards and Pan cards of petitioner No.1(b)
to 1(d) and deceased, wherein it discloses that
petitioner No.1(b) to 1(d) are the children of
deceased. The said documents discloses the aspect
of relationship of petitioners with the deceased.
The respondents not rebutted these documents. The
said document discloses that the petitioners are
legal heirs of deceased Sri.Shanmugam.K.
Accordingly, this Tribunal answers Issue No.1 in
the Affirmative.
10. Issue No.2:- It is the case of petitioners
that accident occurred when the deceased
Sri.Shanmugam.K was walking on the extreme left
SCCH-11 9 MVC.No.6832/2022
side of Hebbal Ring Road, Near Hebbal Circle,
Bengaluru, due to the rash and negligent driving of
Lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-01-AJ-8226 by its driver.
As a result, the deceased sustained grievous
injuries and succumbed to the injuries on
05.10.2023.
11. The daughter of deceased by name
Sri.Shanmugam.K examined as PW.1. In the chief
examination, PW.1 deposed that due to rash and
negligent driving of lorry by its driver the
accident occurred.
12. Further, in order to prove the accident,
the petitioner produced Ex.P.1 & 2, FIR and first
information. On perusal of Ex.P.2 first information
statement, wife of deceased by name Smt.Helen Mary
has lodged complaint with the police on 01.10.2022
with respect to the accident occurred on
30.09.2022. Based on the first information, FIR is
SCCH-11 10 MVC.No.6832/2022
lodged against the driver of offending vehicle for
the offences punishable under Sec.279, 337 of IPC
and U/s.134(a&b), 187 of M.V.Act as per Ex.P.1. In
Ex.P.1 as well as Ex.P.2, the accident is stated to
have been caused due to rash and negligent driving
of lorry by its driver. The FIR is registered
against the driver of lorry alleging that his rash
and negligent driving is the cause for the
accident. The driver or owner of offending vehicle
does not appear to have questioned or challenged
the first information statement or the FIR.
13. Further, the petitioners furnished the
mahazar and sketch which are marked as Ex.P.6 & 7.
The said documents disclose the aspect of police
visiting the place of accident after registration
of FIR and the place of accident has been
described. In Ex.P.6, mahazar, it is stated that
the accident was caused due to rash and negligent
SCCH-11 11 MVC.No.6832/2022
driving of offending vehicle by its driver. In the
said document, it is stated that the offending
vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed to the deceased that stated to have
resulted in the accident. The respondents not
placed satisfactory materials in order to show that
the factual situation, as described in the mahazar,
differs from the actual facts. No materials are
placed by respondents to show that actual facts are
different from the one as described in the Mahazar
and the sketch. Ex.P8 is the notice issued under
Sec.133 of IMV Act and reply given to said notice
is marked as Ex.P.9. In the notice given by the
I.O., there is mention about involvement of
offending vehicle and also about rashness and
negligence of driver of offending vehicle. The
notice is served on respondent No.1, who is the
owner of offending vehicle. The respondent No.1 has
given reply to the notice which is marked as
SCCH-11 12 MVC.No.6832/2022
Ex.P.9. In the reply, there is no mention about
non-involvement of offending vehicle in the
accident and that there is no negligence on the
part of driver of offending vehicle. In the reply
to the notice, respondent No.1 could have denied
the involvement of offending vehicle in the
accident and also denied negligence on the part of
driver of the vehicle in the cause of accident.
There is no recital in the reply notice in that
regard. The said documents indicate involvement of
offending vehicle in the accident and also
negligence of driver of offending vehicle in the
accident. Ex.P.10 is the IMV Report. The vehicle
will be inspected after seizure of same by the
police. The driver or owner of offending vehicle
does not appear to have questioned the seizure
procedure conducted by the police. The said aspect
also indicates involvement of offending vehicle in
the accident. The driver or owner of the offending
SCCH-11 13 MVC.No.6832/2022
vehicle not furnished any materials to rebut the
said document. The respondents not furnished
satisfactory materials to show that the offending
vehicle is not involved in the accident. The I.O.,
after detailed investigation, filed the charge
sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle,
as per Ex.P.13, for the offence punishable U/s.279
& 304(A) of IPC and U/s.134(a&b), 187 of M.V.Act.
In the final report also, the accident is stated to
have been caused due to rash and negligent driving
of offending lorry by its driver. The recitals of
final report disclose the aspect of rashness and
negligence on the part of driver of offending
vehicle in the cause of accident. The respondents
not furnished any satisfactory materials in order
to rebut the said document. The respondents not
furnished satisfactory materials to show that the
investigation has not been conducted in a proper
manner. The driver or owner of offending vehicle
SCCH-11 14 MVC.No.6832/2022
does not appear to have challenged or questioned
the final report or the propriety of investigation,
before the concerned authority. The final report is
filed after detailed investigation and the cause of
accident is stated to be rash and negligent driving
of driver of offending vehicle.
14. The respondents not placed satisfactory
materials before the tribunal to disprove the case
of petitioners. In the absence of satisfactory
materials to the contrary, the documents furnished
by the petitioners are to be considered for
ascertaining the aspect of negligence. Under these
circumstances, relying upon the oral and
documentary evidence produced by the petitioner,
this tribunal is of the opinion that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry
bearing Regn.No.KA-01-AJ-8226 by its driver.
SCCH-11 15 MVC.No.6832/2022
Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered in the
Affirmative.
15. Issue No.3:- During the pendency of
petition, the petitioner by name late
Sri.Shanmugam.K S/o Kalimuthu died and his legal
representatives were brought on record.
Kum.Shanmugapriya S D/o Late Shanmugam K examined
as PW.1. In the chief examination, PW.1 deposed
that her father was taking treatment and has spent
more than ₹.28,00,000/- towards medical treatment,
transportation of body, funeral and obsequies
ceremony. Further in her chief examination, she has
deposed that due to death of her father, they have
lost love and affection and they lost future
support.
16. This Tribunal rely on the Judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court decided on 16.08.2021 in
Civil Appeal No.4800 of 2021 between The Oriental
SCCH-11 16 MVC.No.6832/2022
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kahlon @ Jasmail
Singh Kahlon (deceased) through his Legal
Representative Narinder Kahlon Gosakan and Another
wherein it is held that ;
“The Tribunal, on technicalities rejected
his claim for salary, medical expenses and
percentage of disability and granted a measly
compensation of Rupees one lakh only by a
cryptic order. We are, therefore, of the
opinion that while the claim for personal
injuries may not have survived after the death
of the injured unrelated to the accident or
injuries, during the pendency of the appeal,
but the claims for loss of estate caused was
available to and could be pursued by the legal
representatives of the deceased in the appeal.”
On careful reading of the above decision, the
ratio laid down in the above judgment is applicable
to the case on hand.
17. The petitioners have claimed compensation
towards medical expenses. The petitioners contended
that after the accident, her father was shifted to
Bengaluru Baptist Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he
took treatment as an inpatient from 30.09.2022.
Further during the course of treatment C.T. head
SCCH-11 17 MVC.No.6832/2022
scan was done and X-rays were taken, which revealed
severe head injury-left frontotemporoparietal acute
subdural hemorrhage, right temporal contusion, left
5th and 6th rib fracture, diabetes mellitus, severe
injuries to hand legs and other injuries all over
the body, due to which the deceased underwent
surgery i.e., left fronto temporoparietal
decompressive craniectomy and evacuation of acute
subdural hematoma and bone falp replacement in the
abdomen on 30.09.2022 by Dr.Phelix Rufus, after
other injuries conservative treated discharged on
01.12.2022 with and doctor advice for follow up
treatment, restricted fracture movements, not to
involve in any strenuous activities and for
complete bed rest and continuing follow-up
treatment. Further due to decreased sensorium and
multiple episodes of seizures, he once again
admitted to the same hospital as an inpatient on
23.01.2023 and underwent left frontotemporoparietal
SCCH-11 18 MVC.No.6832/2022
decompressive craniectomy for severe head injury
and plain CT Brain surgery auto cranioplasty done
on 25.01.2023 showed the ventricular tip of the
shunt tube in the right lateral ventricle and there
was interval reduction in ventricular dilatation.
Post-operative changes were seen and discharged on
06.02.2023. The materials on record disclose that
due to altered sensorium, fever and multiple
episodes of vomiting, the injured/deceased once
again got admitted to same hospital as an inpatient
on 30.03.2023 and surgery done for left FTP re-
exploration, removal of bone flap and evaluation of
extradural empyema, right VP shunt exteriorisation
and got discharged on 29.04.2023. Due to complaints
of multiple episodes of seizures and drowsiness,
the deceased petitioner again got admitted to the
same hospital as an inpatient on 17.07.2023 and
surgery was done on 20.07.2023 right VP shunt
Removal of old VP shunt implant and new VP shunt
SCCH-11 19 MVC.No.6832/2022
placed, was draining CSF hydrocephalus is reduced
as compared to previous study. Mild reduction in
the cerebral edema and midline shaft, ventricular
drain tip is in the left lateral ventricle and
discharged on 24.07.2023 and doctor advised to take
complete bed rest, continue medicines and to take
followup treatment. So far, they have spent more
than ₹.26,00,000/- towards hospital charges,
medicines, conveyance, nourishment, food and other
incidental charges. Further due to injuries, the
injured could not be recovered and getting
unbearable pain often, on account of the severe
head injuries. Due to the injuries the deceased is
completely bedridden, mentally disordered, cannot
respond, getting headache and giddiness that forced
to engage a male servant and a nurse round the
clock on payment and undergoing deep mental shock,
pain and sufferings. Further during the regular
SCCH-11 20 MVC.No.6832/2022
follow up treatment her father expired on
05.10.2023.
18. Further, the petitioners contended that
Sri.Shanmugam.K died due to injuries sustained by
him in the accident. The said Sri.Shanmugam.K is
the petitioner and he died during the pendency of
the petition. There appears to be no dispute
pertaining to the aspect of death of original
petitioner. It is the contention of petitioners
that Sri.Shanmugam.K died due to the injuries
sustained by him in the accident. Petitioner No.1,
who got examined as PW.1, stated in the chief
examination that her father Sri.Shanmugam.K died as
a result of injuries sustained by him in the
accident. It is pertinent to note that petitioner
No.1(a) to 1(d) got impleaded in the petition after
the death of original petitioner, as the legal
representatives and carried out necessary amendment
SCCH-11 21 MVC.No.6832/2022
to the petition. The materials on record disclose
the aspect of injuries sustained by Sri.Shanmugam.K
in the accident. It is the assertion of petitioners
that death of their father Sri.Shanmugam.K is
solely as a result of injuries sustained in the
accident. The petitioners not stated the said
aspect in the petition. The materials on record
disclose that the deceased sustained injuries to
head in the accident.
19. The materials on record disclose that the
petitioner sustained severe injuries to the head
due to accident. Further the medical records
furnished by the petitioners disclose that the
father of petitioner No.1(b) to 1(d) obtained
treatment at the hospital frequently due to
complications arisen from accidental injuries. The
discharge summaries furnished by the petitioners
substantiate the said aspect. The said documents
SCCH-11 22 MVC.No.6832/2022
reveal that Sri.Shanmugam obtained treatment
frequently at the hospital due to the accidental
injuries. Further the petitioners furnished PM
Report which is marked as Ex.P.12. In the said
document, the doctor opined that the death was due
to severe brain injury as a sequel of old road
traffic accident. The said document clearly
indicates that the cause of death of Shanmugam was
due to accidental injuries. The materials on record
disclose that Shanmugam suffered frequently due to
accidental injuries and in consequence of the same,
died on 05.10.2023. The accident occurred on
30.09.2022 and injured died on 05.10.2023. Though
the death of Shanmugam is not immediate from the
date of accident, the materials on record reveals
the nexus between the accidental injuries and
death. As per the materials on record, Shanmugam
admitted to the hospital on 30.09.2022, i.e., date
of accident, on 23.01.2023, 30.03.2023 and
SCCH-11 23 MVC.No.6832/2022
17.07.2023 due to the complications arisen from the
accidental injuries. The discharge summaries
indicate that Shanmugam suffered persistently due
to the accidental injuries and ultimately appears
to have died on 05.10.2023 due to accidental
injuries. Though the death is not immediate to the
date of accident, the materials on record clearly
discloses the aspect of sufferings undergone by
Shanmugam due to accidental injuries and the said
sufferings ultimately resulted in the death of
Shanmugam. Ex.P.12 clearly discloses the cause of
death to be severe brain injury which occurred due
to road traffic accident. The materials on record
clearly disclose the nexus between the accident and
death of Shanmugam. On consideration of materials
placed before the tribunal, it can be duly
construed that the Shanmugam died in consequence of
accidental injuries.
SCCH-11 24 MVC.No.6832/2022
20. The petitioners contended that they are
dependents of Shanmugam. The petitioners furnished
notarized copy of Genealogical, which is marked as
Ex.P.27 and also furnished notarized copy of
Aadhaar Cards, which are marked at Ex.P.22. The
said documents disclose the relationship of
deceased with that of petitioners. The respondents
not furnished any materials to doubt or dispute the
relationship of petitioners with that of the
deceased. As per the materials on record,
petitioner No.1(b) and 1(d) are the daughters and
petitioner No.1(c) is son of Shanmugam. The wife
of Shanmugam died on 27.05.2024 i.e., during the
pendency of petition. The petitioner No.1(b) to
1(d) are considered to be the dependents of
deceased Shanmugam. The respondents not furnished
any satisfactory materials to show that the
petitioners are not dependent on the income of
deceased. Though the petitioner No.1(b) & 1(c) are
SCCH-11 25 MVC.No.6832/2022
majors, they are considered to be dependents on the
income of the deceased since no satisfactory
materials are placed to show that they are earning
and not dependent on the income of deceased. Hence,
petitioner No.1(b) to 1(d) are considered to be
dependents of the deceased Shanmugam.
(A) Towards dependency and loss of future
earnings: (i) In the petition, the age of the
deceased Sri.Shanmugam.K is shown as 48 years. In
order to prove the age of deceased, the petitioners
have produced Ex.P.22 – Notarized copy of Pan Card
and Aadhaar Card, wherein his date of birth is
mentioned as 31.12.1973. The accident occurred on
30.09.2022. As per the materials on record, the age
of deceased appears to be 49 years. The respondents
not furnished satisfactory materials to doubt or
rebut the documents furnished by petitioners
related to age of deceased. In the absence of
SCCH-11 26 MVC.No.6832/2022
materials to the contrary, the documents furnished
by petitioners are to be considered for
ascertaining the age of deceased. As per the
materials furnished before the Tribunal, the age of
deceased was 49 years as on the date of accident
and same is taken into consideration. As per dictum
of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in Smt.Sarla
Verma case ’13’ multiplier is applicable in the
present case.
(ii) The petitioners contended that deceased
Sri.Shanmugam.K was working as a Multi Technician
and Technical Supervisor at M/s.ISS Facility
Services India Pvt. Ltd. and drawing a salary of
₹.27,000/- per month. In order to prove the
occupation and income of deceased, the petitioners
have produced Ex.P.23 to 26 i.e., Appointment
Letter, Promotion and Increment letter, Job ID
Card, Pay slips from June 2022 to November 2022 and
Bank Statement. As per Ex.P23 – Appointment letter,
SCCH-11 27 MVC.No.6832/2022
the deceased Shanmugam was appointed as Multi
Skilled Technician in Grade S1 with effect from
12.09.2018. As per Promotions and Increment letter,
he was promoted from Multi Technician to Technical
Supervisor w.e.f 18.03.2020. In order to
substantiate the same, petitioners have examined
H.R. Assistant Manager at ISS Facility Services
India Pvt Ltd., as PW.3 and got marked documents at
Ex.P.32 to Ex.P.35. The documents furnished by
petitioners disclose that the deceased was drawing
net salary of ₹.20,381/- per month. The salary slip
furnished by petitioners discloses that the
deceased was getting ₹.16,562/- towards basic
salary and ₹.5,954/- towards DA. The petitioner got
examined the concerned person from the company as
PW.2 and the witness stated the aspect of
appointment and employment of deceased in their
company. The evidence of PW.2 substantiates the
contention of petitioners related to occupation of
SCCH-11 28 MVC.No.6832/2022
deceased. The respondents not furnished any
satisfactory materials in order to disprove or
rebut the documents furnished by petitioners
related to the occupation and income of deceased.
Though PW.2 is cross examined on behalf of
respondents, nothing to disprove or disbelieve the
contentions of petitioners could be elicited during
the cross examination of the witness. As per the
salary slip pertaining to November 2022, the
deceased was drawing net salary of ₹.20,366/- which
appears to be the last salary drawn by deceased, as
per the materials on record. The other allowances
received by deceased are not taken into
consideration for ascertaining the income of
deceased. On the basis of materials placed on
record, it can be duly construed that the deceased
was drawing net salary of ₹.20,366/- per month and
same is taken into consideration.
SCCH-11 29 MVC.No.6832/2022
In view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Hem Raj V/s the Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd and others, the petitioners
are entitled for future prospects. In National
Insurance Company Ltd V/s Pranaya Sethi and others
case the Hon’be Supreme Court held that, in case
the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary
an addition of 25% of the established income should
be warranted where the deceased was aged between 40
to 50 years. In the case on hand deceased was aged
about 49 years. Hence, in view of ratio laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, petitioners are
entitled for additional 25% to the established
income. The established income of the deceased is
₹.20,366/- and 25% of ₹.20,366/- is ₹.5,091/-. So,
the total gross income of deceased was ₹.20,366/- +
₹.5,091/- = ₹.25,457/- per month. As per the
materials on record, the deceased Sri.K Shanmugama
is married, having wife and children. The wife of
SCCH-11 30 MVC.No.6832/2022
deceased died during the pendency of the petition
and petitioner No.1(b) to 1(d) are the legal
representatives of deceased Shanmugam and his wife.
In order to prove the same, the petitioners have
produced notarized copies of Aadhaar cards which is
marked as Ex.P7 to 9 & 12. On perusal of the same
it reveals that petitioners No.1(b) to 1(d) are the
children of deceased. The said documents disclose
the relationship of petitioners with that of the
deceased. The materials on record disclose that
petitioners are dependent on the income of
deceased. No satisfactory materials are placed
before the Tribunal to show that the petitioners
are not dependent on the income of deceased and
they are earning their livelihood separately.
Hence, petitioner No.1(b) to 1(d) are considered as
dependents of deceased. As per dictum of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Smt.Sarla Verma case
where number of dependent family members is 2 to 3,
SCCH-11 31 MVC.No.6832/2022
1/3rd is to be deducted from the gross income of
deceased towards his personal expenses and
remaining is to be taken as income towards
dependency. Thus, petitioners are entitled to
compensation of ₹.26,47,632/- towards loss of
dependency which is calculated as follows:
Calculation Total (In ₹.)
1/3rd of ₹.25,457/- (deduction of ₹.16,972/-
₹.8,485/-)
₹.16,972/- multiply by 12 ₹.2,03,664/-
₹.2,03,664/- multiply by 13 ₹.26,47,632/-
Multiplier
(B) Towards Consortium, loss of estate and
funeral expenses; In the case on hand, the date of
accident is 30.09.2022. In view of ratio laid down
by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Pranay Sethi
case, the petitioners are entitled for additional
10% on conventional heads which is to be enhanced
on percentage basis in every three years and the
enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span
SCCH-11 32 MVC.No.6832/2022
of three years. So, the petitioner No.1(b) to 1(d)
being the children of deceased are entitled for
₹.48,400/- (each) towards loss of Parental
Consortium and also entitled for ₹.18,150/- towards
loss of estate and ₹.18,150/- towards funeral
expenses.
(C) Towards Medical Expenses: The petitioners
claimed compensation towards medical expenses. The
petitioners contended that their father took
treatment at Hospital. The petitioners have
produced medical bills for a sum of ₹.21,30,362/-
marked at Ex.P.21 and medical prescriptions marked
at Ex.P.20 and advance receipts marked at Ex.P.19.
The respondent not furnished any satisfactory
materials in order to rebut or disprove the said
documents. PW.1 is cross examined on behalf of
respondent and in the cross examination also,
nothing to rebut or doubt the medical bills, is
SCCH-11 33 MVC.No.6832/2022
elicited. The respondents not rebutted the medical
bills by placing cogent evidence. So, this tribunal
is of the view that compensation of ₹.21,30,362/-
appears just and reasonable towards medical
expenses.
21. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for total
compensation as follows:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
a. Towards dependency and loss ₹.26,47,632/-
of future income
b. Towards Consortium.
1. Parental Consortium (3) ₹.1,45,200/-
c. Towards Loss of estate & ₹.36,300/-
Funeral Expenses
d. Towards Medical Expenses ₹.21,30,362/-
Total Compensation ₹.49,59,494/-
The petitioners are entitled for total
compensation of ₹.49,59,494/-.
22. In view of ratio and dictum laid down by
the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA
No.100090 of 2014 C/w. MFA No. 25107 of 2013
SCCH-11 34 MVC.No.6832/2022
between Vijay Ishwar Jadhav and others Vs. Ulrich
Belchior Fernandes and another, the petitioners are
entitled for interest @ 6% per annum from the date
of petition till its realization.
23. The petitioner has filed petition against
the respondent No.1 & 2. It is already held that
the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of Lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-01-AJ-8226 by
its driver. So, the respondent No.1 & 2, being the
owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, are
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to
the petitioners. Hence, Issue No.3 answered Partly
in the Affirmative.
24. Issue No.4: In view of the findings given
on the above said issues, this Tribunal proceeds to
pass the following:
SCCH-11 35 MVC.No.6832/2022
O R D E R
The claim petition filed by the
petitioners Under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with
cost.
The petitioners are entitled for total
compensation amount of ₹.49,59,494/-
(Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Fifty Nine
Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Four only)
with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of
petition till realization.
Respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation to
the petitioners. Respondent No.2 being the
insurer is primarily liable to deposit the
said compensation amount within a period of
two months from the date of award.
Out of the total compensation amount,
the petitioner No.1(b to c) being the
childrens of deceased are entitled for
equal share. In total amount apportioned to
the share of petitioner No.1(b) & 1(c), 60%
of the amount shall be released in favour
SCCH-11 36 MVC.No.6832/2022of petitioner No.1(b) & 1(c), and 40% of
the amount shall be kept in FD for a period
of three years.
In the compensation amount allotted to
the share of minor petitioner No.1(d) shall
be kept in FD in name of minor petitioner
in any of the Nationalized Bank or
Scheduled Bank of the choice of minor
guardian for a period of 3 years or till
she attains the age of majority whichever
is later. The guardian of petitioner
No.1(b) is entitled for interest that
accrues on FD periodically.
After deposit of compensation amount with
interest thereon disburse amount as
mentioned above as per guidelines laid down
by Hon’ble High Court in MFA No.2509/2019
(ECA) and as per General Circular No.2/2019
dated 19.8.2019.
The petitioners hereby directed to
produce particulars of Bank Account of
petitioners, with name of Bank, IFSC Code,
Account Number with copy of First Page of
SCCH-11 37 MVC.No.6832/2022
Bank Pass Book which contained
compulsorily photographs of petitioners,
which is duly attested by concerned Bank.
Further petitioners shall produce PAN
Card/Aadhaar Card.
In case of deposit of awarded amount
with interest thereon by respondent, the
petitioners are entitled to receive
amount as mentioned above after expiry of
period provided for filing an appeal.
Bank shall not advance loan on such FD,
and shall not cause premature release of
FD without permission from the Tribunal.
Bank shall release amount along with
interest thereon in favour of petitioners
on proper verification and identification
or credit said amount to their account
after expiry of three years period of
deposit, without waiting for further
order of court.
The advocate fee is fixed at ₹.1,000/-.
SCCH-11 38 MVC.No.6832/2022
Office to draw Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer,
typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me, in
the open Court on this the 17th day of July 2025.)
(NARENDRA.B.R)
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM
& MEMBER – MACT, BENGALURU
A N N E X U R E
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONERS:-
PW.1 : Smt.Shanmugapriya.S PW.2 : Smt.Stella.M PW.3 : Sri.Ramanna.B.S. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:- Ex.P.1 : FIR Ex.P.2 : Complaint Ex.P.3 : Police intimation Ex.P.4 : Death Memo Ex.P.5 : Requisition U/s.304(A) Ex.P.6 : Spot Panchanama Ex.P.7 : Sketch Ex.P.8 : 133 Notice SCCH-11 39 MVC.No.6832/2022 Ex.P.9 : Reply to Notice Ex.P.10 : IMV Report Ex.P.11 : Inquest Report Ex.P.12 : PM Report Ex.P.13 : Charge Sheet Ex.P.14 to 17 : Discharge summaries Ex.P.18 : Death Certificate Ex.P.19 : Advance Receipts Ex.P.20 : Medical Prescriptions Ex.P.21 : Medical bills Ex.P.22 : Notarized copy of Pan card and Aadhaar Card Ex.P.23 : Notarized copy of appointment letter and increment Ex.P.24 : Notarized copy of Job ID Card Ex.P.25 : Pay slips Ex.P.26 : Account Statement Ex.P.27 : Genealogical tree Ex.P.28 : Authorization letter Ex.P.29 : Police Intimation Ex.P.30 : MLC Register Extract Ex.P.31 : Case sheet Ex.P.32 : Authorization letter Ex.P.33 : Appointment Order SCCH-11 40 MVC.No.6832/2022 Ex.P.34 : Attendance Register Ex.P.35 : Pay slips LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:- RW.1 Sri.Vinya Prasad.G LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:- Ex.R.1 Copy of Policy (NARENDRA.B.R) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM & MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU
