The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/­ for the death of Sri.Siddappa. S/o Sri.Kodappa in a road traffic accident.

2. The brief facts of the petitioners case is as under:

3. It is further contended that, Chikkajala Traffic police have registered the criminal case against the driver of the car bearing No.KA­04­MB­2393 in Cr.No.70/2009. The petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2 and 3 are children of the deceased are solely depending upon the income of the deceased and the petitioners were lost love and affection towards the deceased. The deceased was the only care taking person in their family.

4. It is further contended that, prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was doing coolie at Diwakar crusher mill, Vidyanagara and earning a sum of Rs.500/­ per day. The respondent is the owner cum driver of the car is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

5. After service of summons, the respondent appeared through his counsel and filed the written statement.

6. The respondent in his written statement denied the petition averments and contended that, the false case registered by the Chikkajala Traffic police has been clearly rebutted by the plea of Alibi and he was acquitted in the criminal case. The petition is barred by limitation. The FIR was registered on 03.07.2009 and petitioner No.1 had given statement before the police on 04.07.2009 and she also turned hostile before the criminal court.

7. He further contended that, as per the averments of the petition, the accident took place on 03.07.2009 at 2.20 p.m. on NH­7 Bengaluru Bellary road, Vidyanagara junction, near biriyani hotel chikkajala, as the respondent not at all present with his car at that place as the respondent was an employee, employed in INFOSYS Pune on that day 03.07.2009 had swiped his employee card at 9.24 a.m. in his company plot No.24/2, Rajeev Gandhi Infotech Ltd., He was deputed SCCH-4 6 MVC No.4901/2015 to the Infosys work from 29.06.2009 to 09.07.2009 and stayed in campus hostel. He was astonished when the police had come and issued the notice on 07.08.2009, since, he was not at all present and his car was parked in Hyderbad. The respondent had shown the documents of presence in Pune Infosys, boarding pass, Airtel bill post paid connection, traveling tickets from Hyderabad to Pune and the police left the place without seize the car.

8. He further contended that, on 10.08.2009 the respondent with his friend had visited the Assistant Commissioner of police Bengaluru and stated about the incident that a false complaint has been lodged by the police against him and his car and he also produced the documents. But they have not give importance to the words of the respondent, left the place without arrest the respondent and also did not seize the car. The respondent constrained to issue a legal notice for wrongly implication of the respondent and his car in SCCH-4 7 MVC No.4901/2015 Cr.No.70/2009. Inspite of service of notice they have not issued any reply. The respondent also filed the Cr.Petition No.4712/2009 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, but, the senior public prosecutor submitted, entire investigation was completed and charge sheet was also filed by the police. The Chikkajala police have not consider Alibi and filed the charge sheet before the court and same is numbered as C.C.No.503/2010. Further, the respondent narrated the detailed evidence and documents recorded in C.C.No.503/2010 and also submitted he acquitted for the offences as alleged against him in the charge sheet. He further contended that, the petition has been filed by the petitioners in order to extract the money from the respondent and the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

9. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues have been framed:

10. In order to prove the contention, petitioner No.1 got examined as PW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to 8. The respondent examined as RW.1 and got SCCH-4 9 MVC No.4901/2015 marked Ex.R1 to 30. The Assistant manager of Infosys is examined as RW.2 and got marked Ex.R31 and 32.

11. Heard the arguments with written arguments and citations. I have gone through the following decisions while appreciating the materials available on records.

12. The counsel for the petitioner produced the following citations;

AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2463 in between Seth Ramdayal Jat V/s Laxmi Prasad.

The counsel for the respondent produced the following citations;

1. MFA No.23432/2011 (MV) In the High Court of Karnataka in between Smt.Haseenabanu and others V/s Maqbool Ahamad Fakruddin Killerdar.

2. Civil Appeal No.3538 of 2009 in the Supreme Court of India in between Ningamma and another V/s United India Insurance Company Ltd.,

3. MFA No.5537/2011 (MV) C/w MFA Nos.3182/2011 and 1658/2012 (MV) In the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in between Smt.Sangeetha and others V/s Sri.Krishna Chari and other.

4. MAC No.421/2016 (Old No.72A/13) in the Delhi District Court in between Bimla Devi and others V/s Tapendra Giri and others.

5. Karnataka High Court, Appaji (Since Deceased) and Another V/s M.Krishna and Another, on 17 th December­2003.

13. My findings on the above issues are as follows;

Issue No.1 : In the affirmative Issue No.2 : In the affirmative Issue No.3 : In the affirmative Issue No.4 : In the partly affirmative Issue No.5 : As per final order for the following:

14. ISSUE No.1 and 2: On perusal of pleadings, evidence and documents, in order to establish their case, the petitioner No.1/wife of the deceased filed the affidavit in lieu of chief­examination of PW.1 and reiterated the petition averments. During her cross examination, she deposed that, at the time of accident she was not on the spot, the police and people were saw the accident and informed by the villagers through phone. She denied that, none have seen the accident but, she specifically deposed that, one Hanumanthu has personally saw the SCCH-4 11 MVC No.4901/2015 accident. She admitted that, the said Hanumanthu was not cited as eye witness in the charge sheet. She further admitted that, her husband was crossing 70 feet far away from zebra crossing.

15. On going through the entire evidence of PW.1, she has admitted what ever the suggestion made by the counsel for the respondent without any resistance. Further the PW.1 got made the admission even to an extent of suggestion made by the counsel for the respondent that, the questioned vehicle was not involved in the accident and the respondent is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. The PW.1 is the wife of deceased is not in dispute. Further, either the counsel for the petitioner or the respondent have not disclosed about the education qualification of the PW.1. In the absence of the same, this court noticed her appearance as well as on perusal of the signature of the PW.1 made SCCH-4 12 MVC No.4901/2015 on affidavit evidence, it prima facie discloses that, she is not appear to be the well educated. If, she was literate would not denied the petition averments against her own pleadings. The evidence of the PW.1 also discloses she is village rustic lady and lack of worldly knowledge hence, without knowing consequence of the suggestion, though she was not very much present in the accidental spot has admitted the suggestion of the respondent. Even though she admitted the suggestion of the respondent, based on the factual matrix as well as materials available on records, since she is not a eyewitness to the accident, no much reliance can be attached to her evidence with regard to the occurrence of accident and involvement of the offending vehicle.

16. On perusal of the documents, the FIR marked at Ex.P.1 registered by the Chikkajala PS on the basis of complaint given by police constable. The Ex.P2 is the SCCH-4 13 MVC No.4901/2015 spot mahazar and Ex.P.3 is the sketch, which discloses the scene and spot of the accident, Ex.P.4 is the post­ mortem report, which discloses that, the death is due to head injury sustained. The Ex.P5 is copy of charge sheet, after the investigation the I.O has filed the charge sheet against the driver of Santro XG car bearing No.KA­04­ MB­2393 for the offences punishable under Sec.279 , 304(A) of IPC and Sec.134(A) and (B) R/w Sec. 187 of MV Act and Sec.146 R/w 196 of M.V Act .

17. To prove the defence, the respondent himself examined as RW.1 and he produced Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.30 i.e., Ex.R.1 is the order sheet, Ex.R.2 is the plea in CC.No.503/2010, Ex.R.3 is the charge sheet, Ex.R.4 is the deposition of DW.1, Ex.R.5 is the deposition of RW.2, Ex.R.6 is the notice, Ex.R.7 is the attendance register, Ex.R.8 and 9 are the letters, Ex.R.10 is the postal acknowledgments, Ex.R.11 is the 'B' register extract, SCCH-4 14 MVC No.4901/2015 Ex.R.12 is the letter, Ex.R.13 is the Service certificate, Ex.R.14 to Ex.P.21 are the deposition of PW.1 to 8 in CC.No.503/2010, Ex.P.22 is the requisition, Ex.R.23 is the mahazar, Ex.R.24 is the statement of witness , Ex.R.25 is the inquest report, Ex.R.26 is the FIR, Ex.R.27 is the sketch, Ex.R.28 notice under section 133 of MV Act, Ex.R.29 is the photographs and Ex.R.30 is the copy of the Judgment. The RW.1 in his evidence reiterated the written statement averments in detail.

18. During his cross examination he deposed that, in the year­2003 to 2005 he was in Bengaluru and worked in SIFY Limited Company, Bengaluru and he purchased the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA­04­MB­2393 in January 2005 from show room. He further deposed that, he has paid road tax at the time of purchasing the car and after that, he shifted to Hydrebad in order to join Infosys Company. He admitted 1 st address in cause title SCCH-4 15 MVC No.4901/2015 is his Bengaluru address and any notice issued to that address will reach to him. He further deposed that, he did not try to change registration number of the vehicle but, paid road tax in Hyderabad in the year 2005 and he has no impediment to produce the same. He admitted that, Chikkajala Traffic Police registered case against him in CC.No.70/2009 based on the complaint. He further deposed as on the date of the accident the driving licence is valid and insurance is expired. He further deposed based on the criminal petition No.4712/2009 filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, a complaint was not quashed and the same is dismissed for non compliance, but he acquitted in the criminal case. He denied his car is involved in the accident and caused the death of husband of the Petitioner No.1 in the road traffic accident. He categorically admitted he has not produced any documents to show that, his car was in Hyderabad as on the date of accident.

19. To prove the defence that, he was not in accidental spot as alleged in the written statement, the respondent also examined the Associate manager of Infosys Bengaluru as RW.2 and he also got marked Ex.R31 and 32 i.e., authorization letter and identity card and service certificate of the respondent with attested copy of the Ex.D2.

20. The RW.2 in his evidence deposed that, he also give evidence before Devanahalli court in C.C.No.503/2010. He further deposed that, when a person working in Infosys will be given Identity card and the same will be taken back when they leaves the job. So, Majid Farhan was working in company for 7 years and the at the time of leaving the job his identity card was taken back. He further deposed that, Bengaluru office is the main central in India and any worker working in other branches through out India, he can get entire SCCH-4 17 MVC No.4901/2015 details of worker working every day. He further deposed that, they entered into the work in campus by showing identity card in entry and they have to swipe the card in swiping machine then only they can enter into the campus for work. He further deposed that, from 29.06.2009 to 09.09.2009 Mr.Majid Farhan was working in Infosys company Pune branch and the said branch has issued attendance data which reflects the date, status and in time when entered and swipe in sub­ location, swiped in location, out time, out sub­location. He further deposed that, on 3.07.2009 at 9.24 a.m. the respondent entered Pune Campus and worked there in office and came out at 18.46 and he stayed in Pune Campus. The entire details of entry and exit would be recorded and same will be reflected in the attendance of each person.

21. During his cross examination he deposed that, SCCH-4 18 MVC No.4901/2015 he is doing financial settlement work in the company and the respondent was also worked in their company but, he personally don't know the respondent. He admitted Ex.R7 issued by Pune branch and not the Bengaluru branch. He further deposed that, he personally don't know whether the respondent worked on 03.07.2009 in the company. He further deposed that, he don't know the involvement of the respondent's vehicle in the accident occurred on 03.07.2009. Further, on perusal of the Ex.R7 alleged to be issued by the Pune branch and same was marked as Ex.D2 in C.C.No.503/2010. But, the copy of Ex.D2 document got produced by the RW.2 by attesting the same. After marking of EX.D2 in C.C.No.503/2010 before the court, then how the copy of the Ex.D2 reached to the hands of the RW.2 is not properly explained. The RW.2 also produced the attested copy of the identity card of the respondent and the same is issued from Hyderabad. How SCCH-4 19 MVC No.4901/2015 the copy of the same reached to the hands of the RW.2 is also not properly explained. It is not the evidence of the RW.2 that, the said identity card is maintained in Bengaluru Office. Even he has not produced the original identity card of the respondent. The service certificate of the respondent is also discloses even though the respondent worked in Pune branch, the service certificate was issued by Bengaluru branch. Anyhow, the respondent was worked in the Infosys company is not dispute herein.

22. On perusal of the evidence as well as documents produced by the respondent, it is not in dispute that, the Chikkajala Traffic police have registered the case against the respondent and he contested the case by taking defence by plea of Alibi and finally acquitted for the offences as alleged against him. On perusal of the complaint lodged by the police constable of SCCH-4 20 MVC No.4901/2015 Chikkajala police station by name Kareem Basha who was on duty on that particular day, stated that, while he was on duty in Vidyanagara circle on 03.07.2009 at about 2.20 p.m., even though there is red signal to proceed towards Yelahanka to Airport road, the car bearing No.KA­04­MB­2393 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed to deceased Siddappa who was crossing the road. He further stated that, the driver of the car stopped the car and came near to the injured but on seeing the crowd (gathering) of people, he left the spot with car. He further stated that, he can identify the driver of the car. Hence, it is clear that, the police constable of the Chikkajala police is the eyewitness of the incident. It is also reflects in the complaint that, the said car was TATA Indica car. The Ex.P3 discloses, Mahazar also drawn by the IO in the presence of the complainant with two witness. The Ex.P4 sketch discloses, the deceased was crossed the road about 75% from west to east and SCCH-4 21 MVC No.4901/2015 the alleged car proceeding towards airport road on the right side of the road.

23. In the present case on hand, it is significant to note that, the issue involved in this case is whether the Siddappa died due to the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that was taken place on 03.07.2009, at about 2.20 p.m. near Vidyanagara circle by involving Santro XG car bearing Reg.No.KA­04­MB­ 2393.

24. To prove the defence the respondent examined himself as RW.1 and also got examined the employee of the Infosys as RW.2 and also produced so many documents. But, the entire evidence of the respondent and his witness and the documents produced by him does not discloses the offending car was in Hyderabad, Andra Pradesh at the time of the accident. Admittedly, after the investigation the IO filed the charge sheet SCCH-4 22 MVC No.4901/2015 against the respondent for the offences punishable under Sec.279 , 304(A) of IPC and Sec.134(A) and (B) R/w Sec. 187 of MV Act and Sec.146 R/w 196 of M.V Act by showing he is the owner cum driver of the offending car.

25. Further, even though the respondent stated he filed the Criminal petition No.4712/2009 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, but, either the F.I.R or the charge sheet was not quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Admittedly, the respondent was acquitted in the criminal case by taking the defence of plea of Alibi. On perusal of police documents it clearly shows that, the offending car was involved in the accident. To rebut the said documents absolutely no documents before the court. The accused has proved the plea of Alibi and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in the SCCH-4 23 MVC No.4901/2015 criminal case is not a criteria to deny the claim of the petitioners. It is for the respondent to prove the defence that, at the time of the accident the offending vehicle was not plied in the accidental spot and the same was in Hyderabad Andra Pradesh as alleged in the written statement. But, to rebut the police documents no evidence or documents produced by the respondent except his physical presence in Infosys company. The non­involvement of the offending vehicle is not proved by the respondent in the presence of the police documents. The RW.2 also deposed that, he has not having personal knowledge about the respondent and documents issued by Pune branch.

26. To prove the defence that, at the time of the accident, offending vehicle was not plied in the spot as alleged by the respondent, absolutely no documents before the court. In the absence of the counter SCCH-4 24 MVC No.4901/2015 documents, the court cannot come to the conclusion that, the offending car was not involved in the accident. The respondent taken the defence as plea of Alibi and collected his personal documents to show his presence in Pune Infosys, i.e., boarding, traveling tickets from Hyderabad to Pune and back from Pune to Hyderabad, Airtel bill post paid connection, showing incoming calls, out going calls, attendance data and service certificate issued by the company. But, he has not furnished single document to show that, the offending vehicle was in Hyderabad at the time of accident and not plied in the accidental spot. Even if really, the vehicle was in Hyderabad at that, time, he could have at least produced photograph of the offending vehicle in that locality or any other documents like road tax receipts, toll receipts or any other documents. But, the respondent not chosen to do so.

27. Further, after posting the matter for judgment, the counsel for the respondent filed the memo with xerox copy of one documents alleged to be tax paid receipt, even it is not legible to read. Hence, in the absence of rebuttal evidence, adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondent that, at time of the accident the offending vehicle was plied in the spot and the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car in which the offending vehicle was involved. It is also clear from the records, even though he shifted the car to Hyderabad in the year itself 2005 as alleged by him, but to show that, he followed the traffic rules he has not produced neither road tax nor valid insurance to the vehicle. With out valid documents how he keep the vehicle either in Bengaluru or Hyderabad is to be explained by the respondent himself. Even though in the cross examination he deposed that, no impediment to produce such documents, but he has not chosen to SCCH-4 26 MVC No.4901/2015 produce the same. If, really he is having such documents he may produce the same before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka or before this court.

28. This Court has gone through the decision laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in 2004 ACJ 249 (Karnataka) between Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation V/s Arun " Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , section 166 and Civil Procedure Code, 1908 section 11 ­Claim application­Dismissal of ­Res judicata+­Tribunal relying on finding recorded by another tribunal in claim application arising out of same accident dismissed the claim­Whether the judgment in other proceedings could be accepted as conclusive evidence under principles of res judicata and Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim application­held:no;present claimants were not parties to those proceedings".

29. The counsel for the respondent filed the written argument and argued that, the petitioner not chosen to examine either the eye witness or IO. He further argued in the 8th line of the Ex.P.1 vehicle number was filled and there is a big gap and the word or entirely different scribe and in the Ex.P.1 the complaint also mentioned the vehicle name as Indica car. But the Ex.P.1 also discloses the accident was caused by Car bearing Reg.No.KA­04­MB­2393 in the last portion. At the initial stage the complainant in his complaint stated the accident was caused by TATA Indica Car bearing Reg.No.KA­04­MB­2393, after the investigation the IO filed the charge sheet against the driver of the Santro Car bearing Reg.No.KA­04­MB­2393. The complaint also lodged SCCH-4 28 MVC No.4901/2015 immediately within five hours of the accident. Hence, burden is on the respondent to prove that, as on the date of the accident his Santro Car bearing Reg.No.KA­04­MB­2393 was not plied in the accidental road and it is only the Indica car caused the accident. To discharge is burden the respondent not chosen to examine IO, eye witness or complainant. Further the respondent also raised the point that, at the time of the accident the deceased was consumed alcohol, but no medical evidence forthcoming from the records. In order to prove the contributory negligence also there is no evidence from the side of respondent.

30. Even if the respondent taken the defence, the involvement of the Indica car, they may examine any witness or produce any other documents to show the accident occurred due to the involvement of the Indica car. Mere acquittal in the criminal case is not a ground to escape form the liability. Further, it is the not the SCCH-4 29 MVC No.4901/2015 defence of the respondent that, in order to get compensation the I.O and the petitioner colluded with each other and involved the insured car. But on the other hand, the petitioner taken the contention since the offending vehicle not having insurance, to escape from liability taken bald defence. Admittedly, in the present case on hand the car was not having insurance at the time of accident. Hence, it is clear from the records, since, there is no insurance to the car at the time of the accident, in order to escape from the liability the respondent taken such defence that his car was with him at Hyderabad at the time of the accident and not in accidental spot. In view of the above detailed discussion, adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondent that, the accident was occurred due to negligence of the driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and the car was duly involved in the accident.

31. So, for the above reasons and also discussion, the petitioners by producing both oral as well as documentary evidence, have proved that, the accident was occurred due to negligence of the driving of the driver of the offending vehicle in which Siddappa died due to the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that was taken place on 03.07.2009 at about 2.20 p.m. near Vidyanagara circle, Chikkajala Bengaluru by involving Santro car bearing Reg.No.KA­04­MB­2393. Hence, this Tribunal answered the Issue No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.

32. ISSUE No.3 and 4: This issue relates to dependency, quantum of compensation to be awarded to the petitioners and liable to pay the same.

33. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY: To ascertain the actual loss of dependency, the age, income of deceased and the number of dependents of the deceased are to be SCCH-4 31 MVC No.4901/2015 taken into consideration. It is the contention of the petitioners that, they were solely depending upon the income of the deceased and due to his death, they have lost love and affection of the deceased.

34. The petitioner No.1 is wife, petitioner No.2 and 3 are minor children, petitioner No.4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased is not in dispute. The Ex.P6 to 8 are aadhar cards and ration card discloses the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased. As such, the petitioners No.1 to 5 are entitled for the compensation on the ground of loss of dependency. The claim of the petitioners that, they were depending upon the income of the deceased has not been proved contrary by the respondent. Under such circumstances, the claim of the petitioners in this regard can be accepted. Hence, it is clear that, all the 5 petitioners are depending on the income of the deceased. Since, there are 5 dependents, SCCH-4 32 MVC No.4901/2015 ¼ of the income should be taken towards personal expenses of the deceased.

35. Considering recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Special leave petition (Civil No.25590/2014 dated 31.10.2016 ( National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi & others ), in which it is observed that "in case if the deceased was self­employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation".

36. In a decision reported in 2018 ACJ 5 (Hem Raj V/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., & others), SCCH-4 33 MVC No.4901/2015 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, there cannot be distinction where there is evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guesswork, as such addition on account of future prospects is admissible where minimum income is determined on guess work in the absence of proof of income.

37. In the case on hand, the deceased was aged 30 years and working as coolie. In order to prove the age, the petitioners have not produced any documents. On perusal of Ex.P4 P.M. report of the deceased, which discloses his age was 27 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the age of the deceased is considered as 30 years as on the date accident. To prove the income the petitioners have not produced any documents. The accident took place in the year 2009. Hence, the income was considered as Rs.5,000/­ per month on notional basis and as per the decision stated above, it is clear SCCH-4 34 MVC No.4901/2015 that, the tribunal has to consider future prospects on actual salary less tax and even for self­employed or were engaged on fixed wages. Admittedly, the age of the deceased falls below the age group of 40 years. So, 40% of the future prospects is taken into consideration. Taking into consideration of the same, if, 40% is added to the income of the deceased it would be Rs.5,000/­ + 40% (2,000/­) = Rs.7,000/­ per month. Admittedly, there are 5 dependents, hence, ¼ has to be deducted towards personal expenses. So, ¼ of (Rs.7,000/­ 1,750/­) would be Rs.5,250/­. Annual income is Rs.63,000/­ = (Rs.5,250/­ X 12). The appropriate Multiplier is "17". Thus the loss of dependency works out to Rs.63,000/­ X 17 = Rs.10,71,000/­.

38. So, far as awarding compensation under other conventional heads are concerned, the petitioners have stated that, they have spent amount towards shifting of SCCH-4 35 MVC No.4901/2015 dead body and performing of funeral and obsequies ceremony. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment passed in Special Leave petition (Civil) No.25590/2014 dated 31­10­2017 (National Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Pranaya Sethi and Ors.), wherein it is held that as far as conventional heads are concerned, the petitioners are entitled funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/­, and under the head of loss of estate at Rs.15,000/­.

39. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9581/2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.3192/2018) in case of Muama General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others.

In which it is held in para No.8.7 that:

Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training."

Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose SCCH-4 37 MVC No.4901/2015 their child during their lifetime.

Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their oral in the family unit.

Consortium is a special prism reflection changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationship. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value Further on perusal of child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in case of death of a child.

Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensating for loss of love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.

40. The petitioners are the mother, children and parents of the deceased are entitled for consortium for loss of "protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training. Therefore, Rs.40,000/­ each is awarded to the petitioner No.1 to 5 under the head of loss of consortium.

41. The petitioners are entitled for compensation SCCH-4 38 MVC No.4901/2015 under the following heads:

42. LIABILITY: As discussed above, the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Santro car bearing Reg.No.KA­04­MB­2393. On perusal of the charge shee29t, the IO filed the charge sheet against the respondent for the offences Sec.279 , 304(A) of IPC and Sec.134(A) and (B) R/w Sec. 187 of MV Act and Sec.146 R/w 196 of M.V Act . Hence, it is clear that, as on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was not having valid insurance. Even though the respondent seriously contested the petition but to show that, as on the date of SCCH-4 39 MVC No.4901/2015 accident the offending vehicle was having valid insurance not producing any document. Even in the cross­ examination he deposed as on the date of the accident the driving licence is valid and insurance is expired. The respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle is not in dispute. Since, the offending vehicle is not having insurance at the time accident, the owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. This Court has gone through the decision laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.103557/2016 (MV). In the said judgment the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka observed that the rate of interest is to be 6% p.a., keeping in line with statutory ceiling limit. Accordingly, I answered issue No.3 in the affirmative and issue No.4 in the partly affirmative.

43. Issue No.5: In view of my findings on the above issues, I proceed to pass the following; SCCH-4 40 MVC No.4901/2015

ORDER The petition is hereby allowed in part with cost.

The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.13,01,000/­ with interest @ 6%p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

The respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners and shall deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of this judgment.

After deposit of compensation amount, 50% share is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1, 15% each share is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.2 and 3 and 10% each share is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.4 and 5.

Out of the compensation amount awarded to petitioner No.1, 50% shall be deposited as F.D. in her name in any nationalized or schedule bank for a period of three years and the remaining 50% balance amount with accrued interest shall be released to the petitioner No.1, through e­ payment on proper identification and verification.

Entire compensation amount awarded to petitioner No.2 & 3 shall be deposited as F.D. in their names in any nationalized or schedule bank until they attains the age of majority with accrued interest shall be released to the petitioner No.1 natural guardian through e­payment on proper identification and verification.

Entire compensation amount shall be released to petitioners No.4 & 5 with accrued interest through e­payment on proper identification and verification.

Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/­. Draw an award accordingly.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 21 st day of January­2021) (Smt.Champaka) XVIII ADDL.JUDGE Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bengaluru.

ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for petitioners:

PW.1 Smt.Shanthamma List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:

List of witnesses examined for petitioners:

List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioners: