Bangalore District Court
Ningaiah vs K.S.R.T.C on 27 March, 2024
KABC020076932022
IN THE COURT OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE AND M.A.C.T., BENGALURU (SCCH-22)
PRESENT : Smt.Savitha.P.R.,
B.A.[L]., LL.B.,
XX Addl. Small Causes Judge
and A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
DATED : This the 27th Day of March 2024.
M.V.C.1274/2022
PETITIONER : Sri. Ningaiah,
S/o. Motaiah,
Aged about 55 years,
Residing at Hangarahalli,
Chowdanakuppe Po,
Huliyurdurga Hobli,
Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkur District-572123.
(Rep.By Sri.S.Jayanna., Advocate)
- Vs -
RESPONDENTS : 1.The Managing Director.,
Karnataka State Road Transport,
Corporation (K.S.R.T.),
Central Office, K.H.Road,
Shanthinagar,
SCCH-22 2 MVC No.1274/2022
Bengaluru-560027.
(Rep.By Sri.J.V.Prakasha.,Advocate)
:: JUDGMENT ::
This petition is filed under Sec.166 of M.V. Act 1988 by the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him in the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA-42-F-604, near Chowdanakuppe Government School. The accident occurred on 10.10.2019 at about 7.00 p.m. Due to the accident the petitioner sustained grievous injuries.
2. Prior to an accident he was hale and healthy and he was doing coolie work and earning a sum of Rs. 18,000/- p.m. After the accident he was not able to perform his work. Therefore he sustained loss of income from the date of accident. Therefore the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
3. In response to the notice, respondent appeared through the counsel and filed written statement. SCCH-22 3 MVC No.1274/2022
4. Respondent denied the averments of the petition and contended that the claim petition filed by the petitioners is false, frivolous and not maintainable in the eye of law and denied the occurrence of the accident. Further it contended that the petitioner was a pedestrian who consumed alcohol and walking in zig zag manner in the road hence the driver steered the bus towards the right side of the petitioner who himself fell on the left side of the road, immediately the driver stopped the bus and there is no fault on the part of the driver. Further it contended that the amount claimed by petitioner is highly exorbitant, excessive and without any base. Hence prayed for dismissal of the petition with exemplary cost.
5. On the basis of rival pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed.
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he has sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident that occurred on 10.10.2019 at about 7.00 p.m due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver SCCH-22 4 MVC No.1274/2022 of KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-42-F-604?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
3. What order or award?
6. In order to prove his case he got examined as P.W.1 and got marked 12 documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. Dr. Nagaraj.B.N got examined as PW.2 and got marked 2 documents at Ex.P13 and Ex.P14.
7. Heard arguments and perused the records.
8. After assessing the oral as well as documentary evidence my findings on the above Issues are as fallows:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.3 : As per final order for the
following:
:: REASONS ::
Issue No.1:-
9. To prove the rash and negligent act of driving on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-42-F-604, the petitioner relied upon the his SCCH-22 5 MVC No.1274/2022 oral evidence and police records.
10. The Ex.P1 is the FIR, Ex.P2 is the complaint, Ex.P3 is the charge sheet, E.P4 is the spot Mahazar, Ex.P5 is the seizer Mahazar, Ex.P6 is the IMV report.
11. By going through the above said police record it clearly discloses the occurrence of the accident and the identity of the KSRTC Bus. The charge sheet also speaks that the driver of the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit to the petitioner who was walking on the left side of the road. Due to the impact petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Therefore this court is of the opinion that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the KSRTC Bus. Accordingly I answered Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
Issue No.2:-
12. In this case petitioner has claimed total compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in an accident on various heads. SCCH-22 6 MVC No.1274/2022
13. In the decision reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 (Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another) Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down on what grounds compensation is required to be awarded in personal injury case. In para 6 of the said judgment their Lordships have demarcated the heads under which compensation is required to be considered which reads as here under:
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages(Special damages) (i)Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) future medical expenses Nonpecuniary damages(General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage)
(vi) Loss of expectation of life(shortening of normal longevity) SCCH-22 7 MVC No.1274/2022
14. From going through the above said decision, it is clear that under the pecuniary damages expenses relating to the treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure are required to be considered with. In the second head loss of earning and other gains of the injured person is required to be considered. In the background of principles laid down by their Lordships in the above said decision we have to consider the quantum of compensation for which the petitioner is entitled to.
15. LOSS OF INCOME - It is the case of the petitioner that he has sustained permanent disability due to injury sustained in an accident. In order to prove the same the petitioner relied on the evidence of PW2 and documents produced by him. PW.2 deposed that the petitioner has sustained blunt injury in the chest with fracture of right 5th to 11th rib and right haemothorax.
16. PW.2 stated that petitioner has pain in the right chest, unable to cough, take deep breath, unable to lift SCCH-22 8 MVC No.1274/2022 weights and carry out his job as coolie. PW.2 further submitted that on examination the petitioner has restricted chest expansion, tender right side of the rib and decreased breath counts. The PW.2 further deposed that the x-ray of chest shows united fractures. It is undipsuted fact that the petitioner was doing coolie for which he has to do lot of physical work. He has to lift weight, walk in and around the place where he works. Moreover he has to do a lot of physical work throughout a day. So this disability certainly affect the avocation of the petitioner. Therefore I assess the functional disability of cardiopulmonary disability petitioner at 25%.
17. It is the specific case of the petitioner that prior to the accident he was earning Rs.18,000/- per month. But he has not produced any document with regard to his income. Therefore, the income of the petitioner is taken as Rs.14,000/- p.m.
18. The Ex.P9 Notarized copy of Aadhar card the date of the birth of the petitioner is mentioned as SCCH-22 9 MVC No.1274/2022 01.02.1953 and the accident occurred in the year of 2019. Hence, it is clear that as on the date of an accident petitioner was aged 66 years. As per Sarala Verma's case the proper multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 05. So future loss of income=( monthly income) x 12 months x multiplier x disability, i.e., 14,000x12x05x25%= Rs.2,10,000/-. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to Rs.2,10,000/- towards loss of future income due to permanent disability.
19. PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND LOSS OF AMENITIES - To prove what are the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident, he has relied on the Ex.P8 which is the discharge summary. By going through the discharge summary, it is clear that petitioner has sustained blunt trauma chest trama of right haemothorax.
20. In the decision reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 (Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another), the Hon'ble Apex Court made an observation about the general SCCH-22 10 MVC No.1274/2022 principles relating to compensation in a injury cases.
"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases.
The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adeuately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable.
A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned"
21. Therefore the duty lies upon this court to award just compensation. Due to injuries the petitioner has lost the amenities and enjoyment of life. Thus, he might have SCCH-22 11 MVC No.1274/2022 been forced to incur amount towards amenities and nutritional food. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, it would be just and reasonable to award an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petitioner towards Pain and sufferings and loss of amenities of life.
22. FOOD AND NOURISHMENT AND ATTENDANT CHARGES - From the discharge summaries at Ex.P.8, it is clear that petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient from 13.10.2019 to 17.10.2019 for 5 days. Therefore, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded to the petitioner towards food and nourishment and attendant charges.
23. MEDICAL EXPENSES - It is the case of the petitioner that he has spent huge money for his treatment.
24. In Ex.P10, petitioner has produced in all 19 medical bills. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,749/- towards Medical Expenses.
SCCH-22 12 MVC No.1274/2022
25. LOSS OF INCOME DURING LAID UP PERIOD:
Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident, it might not be possible for him to discharge any work minimum for a period of 1 month. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.16,000/- towards loss of income during Laid up period.
26. TRANSPORTATION CHARGES - The petitioner has taken follow up treatment even after his discharge from the hospital and he has visited the doctor. Therefore, compensation of Rs.15,000/- is awarded to petitioner towards Transportation charges.
28. In all I am going to award compensation of Rs. 4,56,749/- under the following heads:
1. Loss of future income due Rs. 2,10,000/-
to permanent disabilities
2. Pain and sufferings & Loss Rs. 2,00,000/-
of amenities.
3. Food and nourishment Rs. 5,000/- SCCH-22 13 MVC No.1274/2022
and attendant charges
4. Medical Expenses Rs. 10,749/-
5. Loss of income during Laid Rs. 16,000/-
up period
6. Transportation Charges Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs. 4,56,749/-
29. LIABILITY- There is no dispute with regard to insurance coverage of the offending vehicle as could be seen from pleadings. Therefore respondent being owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation.
In view of the same respondent has to deposit the compensation amount before the tribunal. Hence I have answered Issue No.2 partly in the Affirmative. Issue No.3:-
30. In view of the discussions made supra, I proceed to pass the following:
:: ORDER ::
The claim petition under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act filed by the petitioner against respondent is hereby allowed in SCCH-22 14 MVC No.1274/2022 part with cost.
The petitioner is awarded total compensation of Rs. 4,56,749/- (Rupees - Four Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Nine only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the deposit of the amount in the Tribunal.
The respondent shall liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and it shall deposit the said amount in the Tribunal within 60 days from the date of this order.
The entire share of the compensation amount of petitioner shall be released through E-payment on proper identification and verification. The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.
Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of March, 2024) (Savitha.P.R) XX A.S.C.J. & A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
:: ANNEXURE ::
LIST OF WITNESES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE SCCH-22 15 MVC No.1274/2022 PETITIONER:
P.W.1 - Sri. Ningaiah P.W.2 - Dr. Nagaraj.B.N
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
Ex.P.1 - True copy of FIR Ex.P.2 - True copy of complaint Ex.P.3 - True copy of charge sheet Ex.P.4 - True copy of spot Mahazar Ex.P.5 - True copy of seizer Mahazar Ex.P.6 - True copy of IMV Report Ex.P.7 - True copy of the Wound Certificate Ex.P.8 - Discharge summary Ex.P.9 - Notarized copy of the Aadhar card Ex.P.10 - 19 - medical bills Ex.P.11 - Prescriptions 9 in nos Ex.P.12 - X-ray Ex.P.13 - Clinical notes Ex.P.14 - X-ray
LIST OF WITNESES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
----NIL----
LIST OF WITNESES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
----NIL----
(Savitha.P.R) XX A.S.C.J. & A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.