Bangalore District Court
Subba Reddy vs Narayanamma .Y on 18 July, 2026
KABC020362462022
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND
ADDL. MACT., BENGALURU, (SCCH-12)
Present: Smt.Vidyalaxmi Bhat
B.A, LL.B.,(Hon's) LL.M.
XI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-12, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 18th day of July, 2026
MVC No.3488/2023
Petitioner/s: 1. Sri.Subba Reddy
S/o Maddi Reddy
Since Dead by his L.R's.
(a) L.R.1. Narasamma
W/o Late Subba Reddy
Aged about 65 years
(b) L.R.2 Manjunatha
S/o Late Subba Reddy
Aged about 46 years
Both are R/o Solamakalapalli Village,
Mittemari Hobli, Bagepalli Taluk
Chikkaallapur District
(c) L.R.3. Sumithramma
D/o Late Subba Reddy
W/o Manjunatha.B
R/o Kuthapalli Road, 6th Ward,
Bagepalli Taluk, Chikkaballapur District.
(By Sri.A.N.Prabhakar Reddy, Adv.)
V/s
Respondent/s: 1. Smt. Y.Narayanamma
W/o Yeddu Venkatesh
Major
(SCCH-12) 2 MVC. No.3488/2023
R/o Kalvakatta Street, Proddatur,
YSR Kadapa-516360.
(R.C. owner of Hero Splendor Plus
bearing Reg.No.AP-39/KL/8622)
2. M/s. TATA AG General Insurance Co.
Ltd, 3rd Floor, J.P and Devi.
Jambukeshwara Arcade, 69, Millers
Road, Bengaluru-52.
(Vide certificate No.3193856004/
000000/00
Valid from 9/8/2021 to 8/8/2026.
(R-1 By Sri.K.M.Nataraja Murthy, Adv.)
R-2 By Sri.Muralidhar Negavar., Adv.)
JUDGMENT
By this judgment, this tribunal shall decide the petition
initially filed by petitioner Subba Reddy S/o Maddi Reddy and
during the pendency of petition, he died and his L.R’s continued
the case under Section 166 of M.V.Act, 1989 seeking
compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- in respect of his death in Road
Traffic Accident.
2. It is stated in the petition that, on 02.05.2022 petitioner
was riding two wheeler bearing No.KA-40-EF-5430 from
Yeralakkenahalli cross at 10.20 am and at that time, rider of
another motor cycle bearing No.AP-39-KL-8622 came from
Bagepalli side in rash and negligent manner, lost control over
his vehicle and dashed to the two wheeler of petitioner. That
due to the impact, petitioner sustained multiple head injuries
and the rider of motor cycle bearing No. AP-39-KL-8622 fled
away from the spot. That immediately he was shifted to Govt.
(SCCH-12) 3 MVC. No.3488/2023 hospital, Chikkaballapura then to M.S.Ramaiah hospital
wherein he was admitted as inpatient from 25.05.2022 to
30.05.2022. That amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is spent towards
hospital, pharmacy, attendant, conveyance, food and
nourishment charges. That petitioner had sustained traumatic
cervical spine injury, C-2 vertebral body fracture, C-4, C-5
lamina fracture, and injury to left hand.
3. That Gudibande police have registered Crime No.72/2022
for the offence p/u/s 279, 337 of IPC against the rider of motor
cycle bearing no. AP-39-KL-8622. That petitioner is aged 65
years doing agriculture, sericulture and dairy farming. That he
was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. Due to accidental injuries
he has sustained pain and also lost income, that he is suffering
from permanent disability. That the accident is caused due to
negligent riding by the rider of motor cycle bearing no. AP-39-
KL-8622. 1st respondent is the owner and 2nd respondent is
insurer of motor cycle bearing no. AP-39-KL-8622, they are
liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. On these grounds
he prayed to allow the petition.
4. During the pendency of the case, applicants claiming to be
wife and 2 major children of the petitioner, stating that they are
L.R’s of the petitioners have filed application to come on record.
They have contended that petitioner died due to the accidental
injuries on 06.01.2024. their application is allowed and they
have come on record as L.R’s of petitioner and continued the
case.
(SCCH-12) 4 MVC. No.3488/2023
5. On issuance of notice, respondent no.1 and 2 are served.
They appeared before this court through their respective
counsel. Only 2nd respondent insurance company has filed
written statement. The written statement of respondent no.1
was taken as not filed.
6. 2nd respondent contended that it has issued the policy to
two wheeler bearing no. AP-39-KL-8622 which is subject to
terms and conditions. Protection under Section 150 of IMV Act
is sought. That there is delay of one day in filing first
information and FIR is filed on twisting the facts only to have
compensation. There is no nexus between the accidental
injuries and the death of the petitioner. That rider of motor
cycle bearing no. AP-39-KL-8622 had no valid driving licence.
That petitioner died due to old age and not due to accidental
injuries. It has denied the age, income and death of the
petitioner due to accidental injuries. That the accident occurred
due to sole negligence of deceased who was rider of 3 rd party
motor cycle but false case is filed against rider of motor cycle
bearing no. AP-39-KL-8622. On all these grounds 2nd
respondent insurance company prayed to dismiss the claim
petition.
7. On the basis of above pleadings, this Tribunal has framed
following;
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove they are the
only LR’s of one Subbareddy and competent
persons to file this petition?
(SCCH-12) 5 MVC. No.3488/2023
2. Whether petitioners prove that on
02.05.2022 at about 10.20 AM when one
Subbareddy was riding two wheeler bearing
No.KA-40-EF-5430 on Yeralakkenahalli cross,
at that time, another two wheeler bearing Reg.
No.AP-39-KL-8622 ridden by its rider in rash
and negligent manner and dashed to
Subbareddy and caused accident due to which
he sustained grievous injuries and died
subsequently due to the injuries sustained in
the accident?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so by whom and what is the
quantum?
4.What Order or Award?
8. To prove their case, petitioner no.2 son of the deceased
entered into witness box and got examined as P.W.1. Through
him Ex.P.1 to P.27 documents are marked. Doctor by name
Sri.Parichay .J. Perical is examined as P.W.2 and through him
Ex.P.28 is marked. Both of them are cross examined.
Respondents have not led any oral and documentary evidence.
9. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides
and perused the records. The learned counsel for petitioner has
relied upon following judgments in support of his claim.,
(i) Dhannalal (dead) through Lrs V/s Nasir Kahan and
others, 2025 ACJ 216.
(ii) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited V/s Kahlon @
Jasmail Singh Kahlon, C.A. No.4800 of 2021, The Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
(iii) Abdul Rahim and another V/s Sundaresan and another,
2011 ACJ 2197.
(SCCH-12) 6 MVC. No.3488/2023
(iv) Khairullah @ Babu, V/s Anita @ Amruthalal Patel, 1993
Supreme (AP) 564.
10. The learned counsel for 2nd respondent has relied upon
following judgments in support of his defence,
(i) M.Narayanappa Dead by his L.Rs Smt. Ramakka and
another V/s M/s. Shiva Shakthi Bio Planetic Ltd and
another, M.F.A. No.359 of 2013 (MV), The Hon’ble High
Court of Karantaka.
(ii) United India Insurance Co. Ltd V/s Smt. Mobina Banji
and others, M.F.A. No.10092 of 2012 (MV-D), The Hon’ble
High Court of Karantaka.
(iii) The National Insurance Company Ltd V/s Ahmed Pasha
and others, M.F.A. No.201456/2014 (MV), The Hon’ble High
Court of Karantaka, Kalaburagi Bench.
(iv) Deep Shikha and another V/s National Insurance Co.
Ltd, 2025 ACJ 1236.
11. On taking into consideration the oral and documentary
evidence placed before this Tribunal and on hearing arguments,
my answers to the above issues as under:
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
12. ISSUE NO.1 : Petitioners to prove that they are L.R’s of
deceased Sri. Subba Reddy, 1st petitioner wife, 2nd and 3rd
(SCCH-12) 7 MVC. No.3488/2023
petitioners are major children of deceased. 2nd petitioner son of
deceased got examined as P.W.1. In his chief examination he
has stated that 1st petitioner is his mother, he himself is 2 nd
petitioner and 3rd petitioner is his sister. He has produced
family tree and family tree certificate at Ex.P.21 and 22. On
perusal of those documents it can be seen that, they are the
members of one family and legal representatives of the deceased
petitioner. Therefore, in the absence of any contrary evidence
regarding relationship, petitioners are held to be LRs of
deceased and competent persons to file this petition.
Accordingly, this issue is answered in the Affirmative.
13. ISSUE NO 2: Petitioners, to prove the negligence on part
of the two wheeler rider, son of the deceased got examined as
P.W.1. In his chief examination he reiterated the petition
averments. He has relied upon crime records of Crime
No.72/2022 of Gudibande P.S and medical records of deceased
Sri.Subbareddy.
14. On perusal of those documents it can be seen that, P.W.1
who is son of the deceased himself is the first informant. One
day after the accident, information is given to Gudibande P.S.
Accident took place on 02.05.2022 and FIR is registered by
Gudibande P.S. on 03.05.2022. For delay in giving first
information, it is stated that first informant was held up in
arranging treatment for the victim. It is mentioned in the first
information that on 02.05.2022 at 7.00 a.m son of first
informant by name Mahantesh and father of 1st informant by
name Subbareddy both were going on two wheeler bearing
(SCCH-12) 8 MVC. No.3488/2023
no.KA-40-EF-5430 at that time, when they reached Bogenahalli
cross, one two wheeler bearing no.AP-39-KL-8622 driven by its
rider in rash and negligent manner dashed to the two wheeler in
which Subbareddy was traveling. Both the rider and pillion
rider fell down and sustained injuries. The rider of two wheeler
bearing no.AP-39-KL-8622 fled away from the spot. This
information is given by son of first informant over the phone
and immediately first informant went to the spot. Victims were
shifted by ambulance to Chikkaballapura Govt. hospital and
from there to M.S.Ramaiah hospital for higher treatment. That
accident is caused by the rider of two wheeler bearing no.AP-
39-KL-8622 and action may be taken against him.
15. On the basis of this first information, FIR in
Cri.No.72/2022 is registered against the aforesaid two wheeler
rider for the offence p/u/s 279, 337 of IPC and Sec.187 of IMV
Act. On 04.05.2022 i.e., after next day of the first information,
spot panchanama is conducted in the spot shown by P.W.1. The
spot of accident is NH-44. Two wheeler in which victim was
traveling is found in the spot and it is entirely damaged.
Subsequently the offending two wheeler bearing no.AP-39-KL-
8622 was also seized by the police. Both the vehicles were
subjected to IMV inspection in which front side of victim’s
vehicle and front headlight mask of offending vehicle got
damaged. There were no mechanical defects in both vehicles.
16. As per the wound certificate Sri.Subbareddy was admitted
to Govt.hospital, Chikkaballapura with history of RTA with two
(SCCH-12) 9 MVC. No.3488/2023
bikes at around 10.30 am. The injuries mentioned in the wound
certificate is as under:
i. Head injury over parietal region around 4 cm.
ii. Difficulty in moving left leg.
iii. Traumatic cervical spine injury C2 vertebral body fracture
iv. C4 and C5 lamina fracture.
All the above injuries are said to be grievous in nature. As per
the final report charge sheet is filed against the rider of
offending two wheeler bearing no.AP-39-KL-8622 for the offence
p/u/s 279, 338 of IPC and Sec.187 of IMV Act.
17. Charge sheet is filed to court on 17.10.2022 before the
death of Sri.Subbareddy. As such, there is no Sec.304(A) of IPC
in the final report. As per Ex.P.11 and 12 order sheet in
C.C.NO.380/2022 of Hon’ble Magistrate Court of Gudibande,
accused as pleaded guilty of the alleged offenses and paid fine.
As per the discharge summary produced at Ex.P.20 which is
issued by St.Johns Medical College Subbareddy was admitted
on 14.03.2023 with the known comorbidities of hypertension
with the history of RTA in May 2022.
18. In this background, facts of the present case has to be
examined. The documents produced by the petitioner show that
Subbareddy had sustained accident and he was admitted to
hospital with history of RTA on 02.05.2022. The rider who
caused accident has pleaded guilty before the competent court.
According to 2nd respondent insurance company the death is not
caused due to the accidental injuries. In support of the said
contention insurance company has not led any evidence but
(SCCH-12) 10 MVC. No.3488/2023
cross examined P.W.1 and 2. The material suggestions of
insurance company are denied by P.W.1 and 2.
19. To show that Subbareddy died due to accidental injuries
petitioners have relied upon outpatient records, discharge
summaries, prescriptions and medical bills and also I.P file
produced by doctor at Ex.P.28. On careful perusal of those
documents it can be seen that Subbareddy was admitted to
M.S.Ramaiah hospital from 25.05.2022 to 30.05.2022, to
General hospital, Bagepalli from 07.06.2022 to 09.06.2022, to
M.S. Ramaiah hospital again from 28.11.2022 to 08.12.2022
and then to St.Johns Medical college from 14.03.2023 to
20.03.2023. He has been under treatment during the said
period. His death occurred on 06.01.2024. There is only gap of
9 months from the last discharge to the date of death. The
injuries sustained is relating to spinal cord and head of the
deceased. There are all chances that such injury would cause
subsequent death as per the evidence of doctor P.W.2. Material
suggestions are denied by P.W.2. He has stated that since it is
spinal cord injury, the disability may not be reduced.
20. Though respondents contended that, there was no nexus
between accident and the subsequent death of Sri.Subbareddy,
they have not led any evidence in support of their contention.
The deceased having crossed 65 years, the injury to spinal cord
may have resulted in is death as per the available evidence on
record. No doubt there is no post mortem report to support the
contention of the petitioners. But as per the judgments relied by
the petitioners, only on that ground, claim cannot be rejected.
(SCCH-12) 11 MVC. No.3488/2023
The same is held in the case of Abdul Rahim and another V/s
Sundaresan and another, 2011 ACJ 2197 of Hon’ble
Madras High Court. In that view of the matter, this tribunal is
of the opinion that there is nexus between accidental injuries
and subsequent death of Sri.Subbareddy. Accordingly, this
issue is answered in the Affirmative.
21. ISSUE NO.3 : In view of above reasons petitioners are
entitled for compensation. To prove the age of the deceased
petitioners have not produced any documents. As per the FIR it
is mentioned that deceased was aged about 68 years. As per
claim petition it is stated that he was aged 65 years. But no
supporting documents is produced. P.W.1 admitted that
deceased was aged above 66 years. Since FIR is the first
document in which victim’s (deceased) age is mentioned, the
same is considered as the age of the deceased at the time of
accident. After 1 year 8 months from the date of accident, death
has taken place. As such, age of the deceased is considered as
69 years at the time of his death.
22. It is stated that he was agriculturist, sericulturist and
doing dairy farming at the time of accident and earning
Rs.50,000/- per month. No document is produced to show his
income. Hence, notional income has to be considered. Accident
having taken place in 2022, the notional income of deceased is
considered as Rs.15,500/-. In the petition it is stated that all
the petitioners were depending upon the deceased. They are
wife and major children of the deceased. Their separate income
is not proved. Therefore all of them are considered as
(SCCH-12) 12 MVC. No.3488/2023
dependents for the purpose of grant of compensation. The
quantum of compensation is determined as under;
23. Medical bills : Petitioners have produced medical bills at
Ex.P.26 and pharmacy bills at Ex.P.27. Totally they have spent
amount of Rs.78,517/-and Rs.88,315/- under those bills.
Totally they have spent Rs.1,66,832/-. The said expenses is due
to the accident caused to him. Therefore, petitioners are entitled
for medical expenses of Rs.1,66,832/-
24. Food nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges:
From 02.05.2022 till 06.01.2024 deceased was either under
treatment or under rest. Hence, family of the deceased has
spent money for food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance
charges to go to hospital as and when necessary for a period of
1 year 8 months. Hence, Rs.40,000/- is awarded under this
head.
25. Loss of income during laid up period: For more than 1 ½
year i.e., 20 months. Therefore loss of income during laid up
period is 15,500/- X 20 months = Rs.3,10,000/- is awarded.
26. Loss of dependency : As per the Praney Sethi case future
prospects of the deceased will have to be added to the monthly
income. The deceased aged above 60 years no future prospects
has to be added. Further deceased being married having 3
dependents 1/3rd of his income shall be deducted towards his
personal expenses. That is Rs.15,500/- (-) 5,166/-
=Rs.10,334 /-. Hence, the loss of dependency is calculated as
under;
(SCCH-12) 13 MVC. No.3488/2023 Rs. 10,334 X 12 months = Rs.1,24,008/- Rs.1,24,008/- X 05 multiplier to the age group above 65 years = Rs.6,20,040/-
As such, loss of dependency of the petitioners due to the death
of their family member is Rs.6,20,040/-.
27. Loss of love and affection: Petitioners being L.R’s of the
deceased have lost the love and affection of their family
member. Therefore, for loss of love and affection compensation
has to be granted. There is no hard and fast rule in respect of
measuring love and affection but, in the opinion of this court if
amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded for loss of love and affection,
the interest of justice would be met. Accordingly, amount of
Rs.50,000/- is awarded.
28. Loss of Consortium, loss of estate and funeral
expenses: As per the judgment in Praney Sethi’s case, the
quantum of compensation for Loss of Consortium is fixed @
Rs.40,000/- and loss of estate and funeral expenses is fixed @
Rs.15,000/- respectively and it is revisable at 10% every 3
years. As such, accident having taken place in the year 2022,
under the head of loss of estate Rs.16,500/-, for funeral
expenses Rs.16,500/- and for loss of consortium Rs.44,000/-
each to petitioner No.1 to 3 is awarded. Hence, the petitioners
are entitled for compensation as under:
Sl.No Particulars of Heads Amount in Rs.
1. Medical bills : 1,66,832/-
(SCCH-12) 14 MVC. No.3488/2023
2. Food nourishment, 40,000/-
attendant and conveyance
:
charges:
3. Loss of income during laid : 3,10,000/-
up period
4. Loss of Dependency : 6,20,040/-
5. Loss of love & affection : 50,000/-
6. Loss of Consortium to : 1,32,000 /-
petitioner No.1 to 3
( Rs.44,000/- each X 3)
7. Loss of estate : 16,500/-
8. Funeral expenses : 16,500/-
TOTAL : Rs.13,51,872/-
Therefore, this court holds that the petitioners are entitled for a
compensation of Rs.13,51,872/-. Since there is valid insurance
policy, 2nd respondent insurance company is liable to pay
compensation to petitioners. Hence, I answer this Issue in
“Partly in the Affirmative”.
29. ISSUE No.4: Petitioners have sought for compensation of
Rs.25,00,000/- in respect of death of Subba Reddy in road
traffic accident. As per the settled law, the interest that could be
awarded on the compensation is only 6% p.a. from the date of
filing of the petition till the payment. They being wife and major
children of the deceased are entitled for compensation in the
apportionment of 70:15:15. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following;
(SCCH-12) 15 MVC. No.3488/2023
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioners
u/Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is
hereby partly allowed with costs.
It is held that, petitioners are entitled
for total compensation of Rs.13,51,872/-
with interest @ 6% p.a. on the said
amount from the date of petition till the
date of payment.
In view of valid insurance policy,
respondent no.2 shall indemnify the
insured and hereby directed to deposit
the entire compensation amount with
interest before this court within 60 days
from the date of this order.
Petitioners being wife and major
children of the deceased are entitled for
compensation in the apportionment of
70:15:15.
In such apportionment entire
compensation shall be released to
petitioners without making FD.
The Advocate fee is fixed at
Rs.1,000/-.
Award be drawn accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and
then pronounced in the Open Court on this 18th day of July, 2026)
(Vidyalaxmi Bhat)
XI Addl. Small Causes Judge
and ACJM, Bangalore.
(SCCH-12) 16 MVC. No.3488/2023
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined for the petitioner :-
P.W.1 Manjunatha P.W.2 Parichay. J Perikal
Documents marked for the petitioner :-
Ex.P.1 FIR in Cr.No.72/2022 of Gudibande PS
Ex.P.2 First information
Ex.P.3 Spot panchanama
Ex.P.4 Vehicle seizer panchanama
Ex.P.5 & 6 IMV reports
Ex.P.7 IMV notice
Ex.P.8 Answer to IMV notice
Ex.P.9 Wound certificate
Ex.P.10 Final report
Ex.P.11 Accusation in CC No.380/2022
Ex.P.12 Copy of order sheet in CC No.380/2022
Ex.P.13 R.C. extract
Ex.P.14 Insurance policy of vehicle two wheeler
Engine No.HA11EYM6G04930
Ex.P.15 & 16 OPD records ( 2 in nos)
Ex.P.17 to 20 Discharge summaries ( 4 in nos)
Ex.P.21 Family tree
Ex.P.22 Family tree certificate
Ex.P.23 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of
Narasamma
Ex.P.24 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of Manjunath
Ex.P.25 Prescriptions ( 31 in nos)
Ex.P.26 Medical bills ( 23 in nos)
Ex.P.27 Pharmacy bills ( 96 in nos)
(SCCH-12) 17 MVC. No.3488/2023Ex.P.28 IP file of Subbareddy ( 2 in nos)
Witnesses examined for the respondents :-
-NONE-
Documents marked for the respondents :-
-NIL-
(Vidyalaxmi Bhat),
XI Addl. Small Causes Judge
and ACJM, Bangalore.
