Bangalore District Court
Versus vs Petitioner/S By Sri.K.N.C on 19 January, 2022
M.V.C.No.1345/2020
1 SCCH - 7
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ASCJ. SMALL CAUSES AND
ADDL. MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-7)
DATED THIS 19th DAY OF JANUARY - 2022
BEFORE: SRI.UMESH S. ATNURE,
B.Com.LL.B.(Spl)
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT7, Bengaluru.
M.V.C. No.1345/2020
Kumari Kavya.S.,
D/o Sampangi.A.,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at No.272, 1st Main,
7th Cross, Thigalarapalya Colony,
Peenya 2nd Stage,
Bangalore City.
Petitioner/s
VERSUS
The Managing Director,
B.M.T.C., Central Office,
K.H. Road, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore - 560 027.
M.V.C.No.1345/2020
2 SCCH - 7
(Owner of BMTC Bus bearing registration
No.KA57F0621)
Respondent/s
===
Petitioner/s by Sri.K.N.C., Advocate
Respondent by Sri. M.S.B., Advocate
===
Date of filing of petition : 10.03.2020
===
:JUDGMENT:
1. The injured petitioner filed the petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/ for the injures sustained by him in the Road Traffic Accident occurred on 18.02.2020.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, on 18.02.2020 at about 4.00 p.m., she was proceeding by walk in order to go to Yeshwanthapura B.M.T.C Bus Stand on the extreme left side of the road by observing the vehicles plying on the road. At that time the driver of BMTC Bus bearing registration No.KA57F0621 came from Yeshwanthapura M.V.C.No.1345/2020 3 SCCH - 7 BMTC Bus stand drove the same in rash and negligent manner with excessive speed and dashed to the wall and also to her and due to impact she sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to People Tree Hospital Bangalore wherein she was taken treatment as an inpatient from 18.02.2020 to 26.02.2020 and undergone surgery. Prior to the accident she was hale and healthy and she was studying Bachelor of Engineering at Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Technology, Bangalore and due to the injuries sustained in the accident she is not in a position to walk, stand due to which she become permanently disabled. This accident is took place due to the negligence on the part of driver of BMTC Bus bearing registration No.KA57F0621. The respondent being owner of the said Bus is liable to pay compensation to him. Hence he prayed to allow the petition.
M.V.C.No.1345/2020 4 SCCH - 7
3. In response to the notice, the respondent appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement.
4. The respondent denied the entire contention of the petitioner. Further contended that as on the date of the accident the Bus was on its schedule trip from KBS to Hesaraghatta and the Bus was driven by its driver slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road by observing all traffic rules and regulations while it was so proceeding on Yashwanthapura Bus stand exit path the petitioner abruptly came on the path of the Bus and stuck between the parapit wall and the Bus and exposed herself for the alleged accident as such the alleged accident is occurred due to the sole negligence of the petitioner herself and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the Bus. Only with an intention to make unlawful gain from the respondent the petitioner has falsely implicated the Bus in this case as such they are not liable to pay any M.V.C.No.1345/2020 5 SCCH - 7 compensation to the petitioner. Hence, on all these grounds, the respondent prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of above pleadings following Issues were framed.
:: I S S U E S ::
(1) Whether petitioner proves that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of driving of the BMTC Bus bearing registration No.KA57F0621 and as a result he sustained injuries?
(2) Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
(3) What order or award?
6. In order to prove the case of petitioner, petitioner is examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P15 and got M.V.C.No.1345/2020
6 SCCH - 7 examined Dr. Nagaraj.B.N as PW.2, through PW.2 Ex.P.16 to Ex.P.18 are marked and closed their side. On the other hand, the driver of the respondent Bus got examined as RW.1 and closed their side.
7. Heard the arguments of both side.
8. My findings to the above referred Issues are as under;
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative
Issue No.2 : Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.3 : As per final order
for the following.......
:REASONS:
9. Issue No.1: In support of this case, the petitioner
petitioner got examined himself as PW.1 and in her examination in chief she reiterated the petition averments and got marked FIR as per Ex.P1, Ex.P.2 is Complaint, Ex.P.3 is Sketch, Ex.P.4 Spot mahazar, Ex.P.5 is Police Notice, Ex.P.6 is Reply, Ex.P.7 is Wound Certificate, Ex.P.8 M.V.C.No.1345/2020 7 SCCH - 7 is the IMV Report and Charge Sheet as per Ex.P.9. By perusing these documents it is clear that this accident is occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the BMTC Bus bearing registration No.KA57F0621.
10. Further in the crossexamination of PW.1 she clearly denied that as herself was negligent and she was negligently crossing the road without observing the vehicles due to her negligence this accident is took place. Further she also denied that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the Bus. From the crossexamination of PW.1 nothing worth is brought on record to to show that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the BMTC Bus.
11. The driver of the BMTC Bus is examined as RW.1 and in his examination in chief he deposed as per contentions taken by him. In his cross examination he denied that this accident is occurred due to his negligence as such the police M.V.C.No.1345/2020 8 SCCH - 7 have filed Charge Sheet against him. Further he admitted that while entering the Yeshwanthapura Bus stand Bus has to move slowly. He denied that while entering the Bus stand he was driving the Bus in high speed and negligent manner and caused this accident. Further he denied that even though this accident is occurred his negligence he is deposing falsely. Further he denied that due to his sole negligence this accident was took place. From the cross examination of RW.1 it is clear that the driver of the BMTC Bus has denied that due to his negligence this accident was took place but by perusing the police documents and more particularly Charge Sheet marked as per Ex.P.9 it goes to shows that due to the negligence of the driver of the BMTC Bus this accident was took place. Further by perusing the Wound Certificate marked as per Ex.P.7 and Discharge Summary marked as per Ex.P.10 it clearly goes to shows that the petitioner was sustained injuries as stated in her M.V.C.No.1345/2020 9 SCCH - 7 petition. Hence, I answered the Issue No.1 in the affirmative.
12. Issue No.2: The petitioner contended that as on the date of accident she was aged about 22 years and she was an Engineering student and she is studying Engineering at Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Technology. So far as the age of petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has produced her Aadhaar card as per Ex.P.11, wherein the date of birth of petitioner is shown as 03.05.1997. So, it is clear that as on the date of accident the petitioner was aged 23 years. Hence, the age of petitioner is considered as 23 years as on the date of accident.
13. Further the petitioner has produced the Identity Card issued by the Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Technology and the said Identity Card is marked as per Ex.P.12. By perusing the same it clearly goes to show that the petitioner is an M.V.C.No.1345/2020 10 SCCH - 7 Engineering student. Hence it is clear that the petitioner is a non earning person. Further the petitioner contended that in this accident she has sustained polytrauma with severe blunt injury chest and fracture of the bilateral ribs, bilateral clavicle fracture and comminuted fracture middle third right humerus shaft and due to the injuries sustained in the accident she is not in a position to walk, move, stand on her own and she is not in a position to do any work from her hand and she is permanently disabled. In support of this contention the petitioner got examined Dr.Nagarak.B.N., Orthopedics Surgeon as PW.2. By perusing the evidence of PW.2 it clearly goes to shows that the doctor was initially treated the petitioner and he assessed the disability of he petitioner. From the evidence of PW.2 it goes to shows that the petitioner has sustained polytrauma with severe blunt injury chest and fracture of the bilateral ribs, bilateral clavicle fracture and M.V.C.No.1345/2020 11 SCCH - 7 comminuted fracture middle third right humerus shaft and the doctor has assessed the disability to the right arm at 43% and left arm at 31% and whole body disability at 24%. In the crossexamination of PW.2 he denied that for the clavicle fracture there is no disability. Further he admitted that the fracture caused to the petitioner are united and he denied that as the fracture were united the petitioner is not having any disability. Further he denied that as the fractures are united there is no restriction in movement of the shoulder and also denied that there is no reduction of strength in the shoulder. Further he denied that as the fracture caused to the petitioner are united as such there is no disability arises even though to help the petitioner he has given the disability on the higher side. From the evidence of the PW.2 it is clear that the petitioner has sustained fracture to rib and fracture to clavicle bone and communited fracture middle third right humerus shaft.
M.V.C.No.1345/2020 12 SCCH - 7 For the fracture of ribs and clavicle fracture the disability does not arises. Further for the comminuted fracture middle third right humerus shaft the disability arises and due to this fracture the petitioner is not in a position to do any work effectively as earlier and due to the fracture caused to the right humurus shaft the petitioner is not in a position to do day to day work effectively. The petitioner is an Engineering student and after completion of her studies she might get suitable job as per her educational qualification and due to the injuries sustained in the accident she may not be able to do her job effectively due to the injury sustained to her hand. Under such circumstances by relying on the authority reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 between Rajkumar V/s. Ajay Kumar the functional disability of the petitioner is considered as 10% to the whole body.
M.V.C.No.1345/2020 13 SCCH - 7
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is an Engineering student and she is having bright future and she is having good academic track and after completion of her education she will get a job and get handsome salary and by relying on the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.3469/2019 in between the Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., V/s Sri. Kotreshappa.A., and Others decided on 29.08.2019 contended that the notional income is to be considered at Rs.15,000/ p.m. I have perused the said Judgment in the said case also the deceased was an Engineering Student wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/ p.m. In this case also the petitioner is an Engineering student and she is having bright future and immediately completion of her education she might get good job and get good salary. By relying on the above said M.V.C.No.1345/2020 14 SCCH - 7 authority the notional income of the petitioner is considered at Rs.15,000/.
15. With regard to the quantum, the age of the petitioner is considered as 23 years and the income is considered at Rs.15,000/ p.m. As per Sarala Varma Case the multiplier 18 is applicable and functional disability is considered at 10%. On considering the avocation and age of the petitioner, the total loss of future income is calculated as (Rs.15,000/ X 12 X 18 X 10/100) = Rs.3,24,00000. An amount of Rs.3,24,000/ is awarded to the petitioner under the head loss of future income for the permanent disability suffered by her in the accident. As the petitioner has sustained polytrauma with severe blunt injury chest and fracture of the bilateral ribs, bilateral clavicle fracture and comminuted fracture middle third right humerus shaft and it shows that definitely the petitioner has suffered some pain due to the injuries sustained in the accident, hence an M.V.C.No.1345/2020 15 SCCH - 7 amount of Rs.30,000/ is awarded towards pain and sufferings. Further due to the injuries sustained in the accident the petitioner may not be able to discharge her day today duties independently and after the accident she might have taken rest for for a period of one months and in the one month she has taken assistance of an attendant and she has taken nutritious food, hence an amount of Rs.10,000/ is awarded towards attendant charges and nourishment. Further the petitioner has produced the hospital and medicine bills as per Ex.P.14. By perusing the same out of the hospital bill of Rs.2,10,959/ the Star Health and Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., paid Rs.1,88,693/ and there is a balance of 22,266/ and by perusing the Hospital bills it goes to shows that the petitioner has paid Rs.22,266/. Further the petitioner has produced the hospital and medicine bills, hence an amount of Rs.32,241/ is awarded under the head hospital and medicine charges.
M.V.C.No.1345/2020 16 SCCH - 7 Due to the injuries sustained in the accident the petitioner has suffered uncomfortable in her day to day life, hence an amount of Rs.10,000/ is awarded towards loss of amenities. The petitioner is entitled to compensation under the following heads;
Loss of future earning Rs. 3,24,000.00
Capacity due to permanent
disability
Pain and sufferings Rs. 30,000.00
Attendant charges and Rs. 10,000.00
nourishment
Loss of amenities Rs. 10,000.00
Medicine and hospital charges Rs. 32,241.00
Total Rs. 4,06,241.00
Hence the petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable compensation amount of Rs.4,06,241/.
16. While answering the issue No.1 this Tribunal come to the conclusion that, the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of rider of BMTC Bus bearing registration No.KA57F0621 and Respondent is the owner of the said M.V.C.No.1345/2020 17 SCCH - 7 Bus. Hence the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of petition. Hence I answered the issue No.2 in partly affirmative.
17. Issue No.3: For the above stated reasons I proceed to pass the following;
:ORDER:
Claim petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/.
Petitioner is awarded just and reasonable compensation of Rs.4,06,241/ (Rupees Four Lakh, Six Thousand, Two Hundred and Forty One Only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition to till the date of depositing of the compensation amount in the Court.
Respondent being the owner of BMTC Bus bearing registration No.KA57F0621 is directed to deposit the awarded compensation amount in the Court within 02 month from the date of this judgment.
Draw award accordingly.
:APPORTIONMENT:
M.V.C.No.1345/2020
18 SCCH - 7 On deposit of compensation amount the petitioner shall deposit 50% of the compensation amount in any of the Nationalized Banks as F.D. for a period of 2 years.
After expiry of period of fixed deposit the Bank Authorities are at liberty to release the amount shown in the F.D. to the concerned depositor in accordance with rules and regulations of the bank after proper identification of the depositor.
Remaining 50% amount is to be paid to Injured/Petitioner under Epayment and after verifying the stay order from the Hon'ble Appellate Court.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, corrected and then, pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 19th day of January 2022).
(Umesh S.Atnure) IX ASCJ & ACMM, Court of Small causes, Member MACT, Bengaluru.
: ANNEXURE :
List Of Witnesses Examined For Petitioner/s.
PW1 : Kavya.S.
PW2 : Dr. Nagaraj.B.N.
M.V.C.No.1345/2020
19 SCCH - 7
List of exhibited documents marked for Petitioner/s.
Ex.P1 : FIR Ex.P2 : Complaint Ex.P3 : Sketch Ex.P4 : Spot mahazar Ex.P5 : Police Notice Ex.P6 : Reply Ex.P7 : Wound Certificate Ex.P8 : IMV Report Ex.P9 : Charge Sheet along with statement of witness Ex.P10 : Discharge Summary
Ex.P11 : Notarized copy of Adhar Card of Kavya Ex.P12 : Notarized copy of Identity Card issued by Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Technology Ex.P13 : Notarized copy of Certificate issued by NCC Ex.P14 : Medical Bills Ex.P15 : Medical Prescriptions Ex.P16 : Clinical Report Ex.P17 : Xray Film Ex.P18 : Case Sheet List of witnesses examined for the Respondent/s:
RW1 : S. Byranna
M.V.C.No.1345/2020
20 SCCH - 7
List of exhibited documents marked for the Respondent/s:
- NIL (Umesh S.Atnure) IX ASCJ & ACMM, Court of Small causes, Member MACT, Bengaluru.