Bangalore District Court
Shwetha T vs B.M.T.C on 25 January, 2025
KABC020278182022
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU CITY
SCCH-17
Present: Sri. KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM B.A.L, LL.M.,
Member, MACT
XIX ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 25th day of January - 2025
MVC No.5051/2022
PETITIONER/S: Shwetha T.
D/o Thandashetty T,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at: Durgamba P G,
Doddathoguru, Electronic city,
Bengaluru 560100.
Permanent R/o:
Uppara beedi,
Post office street,
Madhuvanahalli village,
Chamarajanagar,
Karnataka 571440.
(By Sri Manjunatha B L, Adv.,)
V/s.
RESPONDENT: The Managing Director
SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022
B.M.T.C.
Head office, K H Road,
Shanthi nagar,
Bangalore 560027.
(By Sri. K R Manjunatha, Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition U/Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident that occurred on 12-09-2022.
2. The petition averments in brief are as under:
On 12-09-2022 at about 5.55 p.m., the petitioner was proceeding as a passenger in BMTC Bus bearing No. KA.57.F.4959 from Madiwala towards Electronic city. When the petitioner was getting down from the bus on Electronic city phase I, near Vottera hotel, at that time the driver of the said bus without giving any indication driven the same in a rash and negligent manner, as such the petitioner fell down from the bus and the left side back wheel of the bus ran over the left thigh, waist of the SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022 petitioner and caused the accident. Due to the impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body.
Immediately after the accident, she was shifted to Kauvery hospital, wherein the petitioner took treatment as an inpatient. Petitioner has spent Rs.5,00,000/- towards hospitalization charges, treatment medicines, conveyance, nourishing food and other incidental charges etc., Prior to the accident, petitioner was very hale and healthy, aged about 22 years and she was working in a private company and earning Rs.40,000/- p.m. Due to the accidental injuries petitioner is not able to continue her work and lost her income.
The respondent is the owner and internal insurer of the bus and is liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/- with interest.
SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022
3. After service of notice respondent appeared through its counsel and filed written statement by contending that, on 12-09-2022 the bus was on its schedule trip from depot No.3, route No. G-3/8 and when it reached near Electronic city at about 5.55 p.m near Ottera hotel junction, the petitioner got down from the bus from automatic doors from the middle door of the bus and also contended that the petitioner suddenly might have realized that she did not get down in the bus stop and fell down on the road and sustained severe injuries and hence the petitioner is solely responsible for the accident by getting down from the moving bus. It has denied the cause and manner of accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner, treatment taken and also the amount spent towards medical expenses. Further denied the age, avocation and income of the petitioner. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant. Hence, the respondent prays to dismiss the petition against it.
SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022
4. On the basis of the rival contention, the following issues are framed by this court:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she has sustained grievous injuries due to the actionable negligent driving of BMTC Bus bearing No. KA.57.F.4959 by its driver, in RTA took place on 12.09.2022 at about 5.55 p.m. near Offera hotel junction, Electronic city pase I, Bengaluru ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount & from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
5. In order to prove the claim petition, the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to 14. MRO of Kauvery hospital and Dr. Bharath Rah R of Mithra Multi Speciality hospital are examined as PW.2 & PW.3 and through them Ex.P15 to 20 were got marked.
On the other hand the driver of the bus is examined as RW.1 and Ex.R1 is got marked.
SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022
6. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the material evidence that are available on record.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under.
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative;
Issue No.2 : In the affirmative
Issue No.3 : As per final orders
for the following:-
: R E A S O N S:
ISSUE NO.1 :
8. That by reiterating all the averments made in the petition, the petitioner has filed his affidavit in lieu of- examination in-chief, which is considered as P.W.1. In support of her case, she has produced copies of FIR, complaint, spot mahazar along with sketch, IMV notice and reply, wound certificate, IMV report and charge sheet, which are marked under Ex.P.1 to 9.
9. On perusal of Ex.P1, FIR is registered on the basis of the first information given by one Thandashetty who is the father of the petitioner. The contents of Ex.P2 SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022 complaint and Ex.P1 FIR supports the contention of the petitioner against the negligence driving of the driver of BMTC Bus bearing No. KA.57.F.4959 which is owned and insured by the respondent. In continuation of Ex.P1 & 2, the police drawn spot mahazar and sketch as per Ex.P3 & 4. As per the mahazar the accident spot is in the left side of the road. Further Ex.P8 is the IMV report wherein no visible damages were found on the offending bus. It is very important to note that no other vehicles are involved in the said accident. It is the allegation of the petitioner that she was the passenger and while she was getting down from the bus, the driver of the bus moved the bus thereby she fell down and got injuries as the back side tyre of the bus was ran over on the petitioner. The petitioner was passenger and running over of the bus on the petitioner is not disputed by the respondent.
10. It is the contention of the respondent that the petitioner by suddenly realising that she has to get down, SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022 she tried to get down from the moving bus as such, the accident was caused on her negligence.
11. By keeping the contention of petitioner, defence of the respondent in background if we verify the evidence adduced by both parties, to prove her case the petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and deposed by filing affidavit in lieu of her chief- examination. The learned counsel for the respondent cross-examined the PW.1 wherein she stated that her friends were also along with her and prior to her one Chetana and Shiney were already got down and after her one Keerthi was standing to get down from the bus. The answers given by the PW.1 in respect of the mode of accident is hereby quoted for the better appreciation of the case.
"ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಇಳಿಯುವ ನಿಲ್ದಾ ಣ ಇಲ್ಲದೇ ಇದ್ದರೂ ಸಹಾ ನಾನೇ ಇಳಿಯಲು ಹೋಗಿ ಅಪಘಾತಕ್ಕೆ ಕಾರಣಳಾಗಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಅವರೇ ಇಳಿಯಲು ಹೇಳಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂದು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ನುಡಿದಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ನಮಗೆ ಇಳಿಯಲು ಕಂಡಕ್ಟರ್ ಹೇಳಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ಚಲಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಬಸ್ಸಿ ನಲ್ಲಿ ನಾವು ಕಂಡಕ್ಟರ್ ಮತ್ತು ಡ್ರೆೃವರ್ ಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಸೂಚನೆ ನೀಡದೇ ಇಳಿಯಲು ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸಿ ಅಪಘಾತವಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ''.
SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022 "ನನಗಿಂತ ಮುಂಚೆ ಚೇತನ ಮತ್ತು ಶೈನಿ ಇಳಿದಿದ್ದು ನನ್ನ ಹಿಂದೆ ಕೀರ್ತಿ ಎನ್ನು ವವರು ಇದ್ದು ನಾನು ಇಳಿಯುವಾಗ ಹೀಗೆ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ನಮ್ಮನ್ನು ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಬೇರೆ ಪ್ರಯಾಣಿಕರು ಸಹಾ ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಇಳಿದಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ನಾವು ಮೊಬೈಲ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾತನಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು ನಿಲ್ದಾ ಣವಿಲ್ಲದ ಸ್ಥಳದಲ್ಲಿ ಆತುರದಿಂದ ಇಳಿಯಲು ಹೋಗಿ ಅಪಘಾತವಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.''
12. The written statement and evidence affidavit of RW.1 clearly shows that the petitioner got injuries in the said accident and she was admitted by RW.1 in the nearby hospital. Thereby the fact of accident is established before this court and only the point of negligence has to be looked into.
13. It is contended by the respondent that the petitioner was got down from the moving bus and thereby caused the accident. In this regard, the driver of the BMTC bus examined as RW.1 by alleging that the petitioner herself was negligent as she tried to got down from the moving bus.
14. The answers given by the PW.1 at the cross- examination shows that she was traveling in the said bus SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022 along with other friends by name Chethana, Shiney and Keerthi. The PW.1/ petitioner also stated that prior to Chethana and Shiney were got down from the bus and after her Keerthi was standing to get down from the bus. This shows that the petitioner was not in hurry to get down from the bus. It shows that the driver of the offending bus bearing No. KA-57-F-4959 opened the automatic door and allowed the passengers to get down from the bus and while the passengers including the petitioner trying to get down from the bus he moved the bus as such, the back tyre of the bus ran over the petitioner. Thus, the negligence of driver of the offending bus is more evident in this case.
15. The suggestions were put to the PW.1 by suggesting that the petitioner was tried to got down from the bus in a place where there was no bus stop as such, she was in hurry and accident was resulted by her negligence. The said contention also cannot acceptable because, the control of the automatic doors will be with SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022 the driver and only he is authorised to open the said door. Thereby when he has opened the doors it shows that he implidely permitted the passengers to get down from the bus where there was no negligence.
16. Yet another point which need to be looked into is as contended by the respondent if the petitioner was tried to get down from the bus in a hurry by using the mobile phone, she would have got slipped from the bus and got some other injuries. But the driver of the offending bus by opening the door permitted the passengers to get down from the bus and thereafter moved the bus without closing the door as such, the back side tyre of the bus ran over the petitioner after fell down. Thus it shows that the driver of the offending bus by opening the door permitted the passengers to get down and thereby while they are trying to get down moved the bus without closing the door thereby, his gross negligence caused this mishap. At the time of cross-examination also the RW.1 stated that as there was SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022 bus stop he has opened the door. Further the RW.1 also admitted that he will open the door whenever the passengers are getting inside and he will close the same after the passengers got inside or got down. In this case also, if the driver has closed the door before moving the bus the said accident is not going to be caused. Thereby the negligence of the driver of the bus made established before this tribunal by the petitioner.
17. The Ex.P9 charge sheet is came to be filed on the driver of BMTC Bus bearing No. KA.57.F.4959, thereby it can be infer that the IO has opined that the negligence is on the part of driver of BMTC Bus bearing No. KA.57.F.4959. No grounds are made out by the respondent to hold the contrary opinion to charge sheet.
At this juncture, I would like to quote the following judgment wherein it states that;
2009 ACJ 287 ( National Ins. Co. V/s.
Pushparama and others), wherein it is held that, SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022 Certified copy of the criminal court records such as FIR, recovery and mechanical inspection of the vehicle or documents are of sufficient proof to reach the conclusion that the rider was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a Civil Court. Hence, strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard.
18. Hence, by relying on the said precedent and in the absence of rebuttal evidence and denial in respect of police documents marked at Ex.P1 to 9, this court is of the opinion that the accident has happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of BMTC Bus bearing No. KA.57.F.4959.
19. In a claim for compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant is to prove the incident only on preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022 required as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2011 SAR (CIVIL) 319 Kusum and others V/s Satbir and others.
20. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others (2009) 13 SCC 530, wherein it is held that, it was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied.
21. In support of these documentary evidence, if we perused the oral evidence of the petitioner on this point, even though the respondent cross-examined the petitioner, nothing been elicited to disbelieve the case of the petitioner.
SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022
22. In this context by considering the contents of Ex.P1 to 9 this court tilts in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner has to prove the alleged negligence on the basis of the evidence and proof of the same on preponderance of probabilities. The Ex.P9 charge sheet also supports the view of this court, as the charge sheet filed for the offence punishable under Sec. 279 & 338 of IPC against the driver of BMTC Bus bearing No. KA.57.F.4959.
23. As per well settled principle of law, the standard of proof in the claim petition like the present is preponderance of the probability. There are no grounds to disbelieve the case of petitioner in the absence of rebuttal evidence. All the materials available on record leading to show that, petitioner has sustained injuries in the accident took place on 12-09-2022 which is caused by the driver of the the BMTC Bus bearing No. KA.57.F.4959 which belonging to respondent. There is no reasons to discard the evidence of petitioner. In the claim SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022 petition like present one strict proof is not necessary but preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. Accordingly, issue No.1 answered in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2:
24. As already held herein above, the petitioner has proved that she has sustained injuries in RTA which is caused by the driver of BMTC Bus bearing No. KA.57.F.4959 belongs to respondent. Hence, the petitioner is entitle for compensation. Now the quantum of compensation is to be ascertained on different heads. This Court has already held Issue No.I in the affirmative which makes it more than obvious that the petitioner is entitled for compensation for the injuries sustained by her. Needless to state the quantum of compensation which is awarded has to be proportionate to the nature of the injuries and the compensation has to be awarded by keeping in mind the pecuniary damages and non- pecuniary damages suffered by the injured-claimant. By pecuniary damages this Court is referring to the actual SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022 loss sustained by the petitioner, which can be determined in terms of money, by taking into account the oral or documentary evidence whereas by non-pecuniary damages this Court is referring to the losses that the claimant has though suffered, but will not be able to prove for the reason that it can neither be calculated in terms of the money nor can it be proved leading documentary evidence. Perhaps the non-pecuniary damages can be figured out by looking into the facts of each case by taking into account the nature of injuries and the aftermath. It is required to be reminded to oneself that compensation in a case arising out of injury can never be granted on mathematical precision and invariably a good amount of guesswork is involved while determining the compensation in such cases. Perhaps unlike in a fatal case, in a case involving bodily injury the victim is left to suffer throughout his life; and hence it becomes the bounden duty of the tribunal to award compensation to a victim of permanent disability so as to SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022 bring in sustainability and also to ensure that victim is not pushed to poverty.
25. In order to demonstrate the pecuniary loss suffered by him due to the injuries, the petitioner has led oral and documentary evidence. The PW.1 in his oral evidence has asserted on oath that immediately after the accident, he was taken to Columbia Clinic, Davanagere. This Court has already held Issue No.I in the affirmative and Issue No. II in the negative which makes it more than obvious that the petitioner is entitled for compensation. Needless to state the quantum of compensation which is awarded has to be proportionate to the nature of the injuries and the compensation has to be awarded by keeping in mind the pecuniary damages and non-pecuniary damages suffered by the injured- claimant. By pecuniary damages this Court is referring to the actual loss sustained by the petitioner, which can be determined in terms of money, by taking into account the oral or documentary evidence whereas by non-pecuniary SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022 damages this Court is referring to the losses that the claimant has though suffered, but will not be able to prove for the reason that it can neither be calculated in terms of the money nor can it be proved leading documentary evidence. Perhaps the non-pecuniary damages can be figured out by looking into the facts of each case by taking into account the nature of injuries and the aftermath. It is required to be reminded to oneself that compensation in a case arising out of injury can never be granted on mathematical precision and invariably a good amount of guesswork is involved while determining the compensation in such cases. Perhaps unlike in a fatal case, in a case involving bodily injury the victim is left to suffer throughout his life; and hence it becomes the bounden duty of the tribunal to award compensation to a victim of permanent disability so as to bring in sustainability and also to ensure that victim is not pushed to poverty.
SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022
26. In order to demonstrate the pecuniary loss suffered by the petitioner due to the injuries, the petitioner has led oral and documentary evidence. The PW.1 in his oral evidence has asserted on oath that immediately after the accident, she was taken to nearby Kauvery Hospital where she underwent treatment from 12.9.2022 to 4.10.2022. Once again the petitioner admitted to Kauvery Hospital on 29.10.2022. Further the petitioner has supported the said contention by producing Ex.P-7 wound certificate, Ex.P11 & 14 discharge summaries, Ex.P13 medical bills pertaining to the petitioner which reveal indeed the petitioner underwent treatment at Kauvery Hospital. Further the petitioner has produced the Ex.P-18 inpatient case details which consisting of lab reports and line of treatment. Further the petitioner has asserted that she has spent more than Rs.5,00,000/- towards her treatment and Rs.20,000/- towards transportation, Rs.20,000/- towards food and nourishment and she is in SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022 need of another Rs.5,00,000/- for future medical expenses. The medical documents produced by the petitioner reveal that petitioner indeed has sustained grievous injuries and she has undergone treatment for the same. As regards the nature of injuries and the disability suffered the petitioner has produced Ex.P-18 inpatient case details, Ex.P19 clinical notes and Ex.P20 X-ray and the same are supported by oral evidence adduced by PW-3 doctor. It is keeping these facts in mind that the compensation has to be determined. (A) TOWARDS PAIN AND SUFFERINGS:
The petitioner has relied upon Ex.P.7 - wound certificate, which make it crystal clear that PW-1 has sustained laceration muscle deep present over right inguinal region, laceration tissue deep present over lower back, comminuted fracture of left iliac bone with hematoma in the iliacus muscle, diastasis of left sacroiliac joint, fracture of right pubic rami, fracture of left acetabulum, fracture of right ala of sacrum, SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022 comminuted intercondylar fracture of left femur, right perineal tear, crush injury of right pubis and right medial upper thigh and intra peritoneal bladder rupture with uterine avulsion. Out of which injury No.1 & 2 are simple in nature and injury No.3 to 10 are grievous in nature. The Ex.P7 wound certificate establishes the injury sustained by the petitioner. The Ex.P11 & 14 discharge summaries reveals that the following diagnosis and procedures were made to the petitioner. The petitioner sustained road traffic accident with pelvic fracture with intrapritoneal bladder rupture with Uterine Avulsion (Utero- Cervical Transection), right pubis fracture, left iliac fracture/ left sacro-iliac fracture, trochanter fracture/ Subtrochanteric fracture left femur with left common peroneal neuropathy, degloving injury lower back and right thigh/ gluteal region with skin necrosis and contusion lower back/ right thigh region gluteal region. She underwent procedure of exploratory lapatoromy + Bladder repair + Hysterectomy, CRIF with SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022 IMIL nail and bolts for femur fracture + external fixation application for pelvis ring, extension of necrotic skin over right thigh in lateral aspect + wound debridement of necrotic and excision of Necrotic skin, debridement of lower back/ right thigh unhealthy subcuteneous fat and wound closure. Hence keeping in mind the injuries mentioned in wound certificate and discharge summaries, it can be said that the petitioner must have undergone physical pain and sufferings, for which, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- can be held to be just and proper compensation under this head.
(B) TOWARDS MEDICAL EXPENSES:
The petitioner has contended that she has spent more than Rs.5,00,000/- for her treatment and has produced medical bills which are marked as Ex.P-13 amounting to Rs.77,216/-. These bills are not disputed by the respondent and no grounds are made out to disbelieve these bills. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case in combined with the alleged injuries the petitioner SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022 is entitle by rounding off the same i.e., Rs.77,300/- under this head.
C) Loss of income during laid up period: The petitioner has stated that she was working in a private company and earning Rs.40,000/- p.m. To prove the said fact the petitioner has not produced any document.
Such being the case, it is just and necessary to consider the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.15,500/- p.m. as the accident is of the year 2022.
As per the discharge summaries marked at Ex.P11 & 14 - the petitioner was admitted to Kauvery hospital from 12-09-2022 to 04-10-2022 and 08-04-2024 to 09- 04-2024 (after 2 years) totally for 24 days. Thereafter usually the healing period has to be considered. Hence, the six months of period is considered as healing period including 24 days inpatient period may be considered under this head as a loss of income. So, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.15,500 X 6 months = Rs.93,000/- during the laid up period.
SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022
d) Disability;- To prove the nature of injuries
sustained by her the petitioner examined Dr. Bharath Raj R. Orthopedic Surgeon at Mithra Multi Speciality Hospital as PW.3, through him clinical notes and X-ray are marked at Ex.P.19 & P.20. According to the evidence of this witness the petitioner sustained pelvis fracture with sacroiliac joint injury bilaterally with left femur intertrochanteric fracture with injury to bladder and reproductive organs and to bowel. He examined the petitioner for assessment of disability. Petitioner suffered total disability of 60% to the left lower limb and 30% to the whole body disability. This aspect is not impeached during the course of cross-examination. The evidence of PW.3 doctor shows that there is small union in the fractures and she has the difficulty in passing the urine and also she has no periods due to hysterectomy and she has restricted hip movement. This shows that the petitioner certainly effected with her earning capacity and SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022 certainly it reduce her involvement and performance in her profession.
According to the petitioner she was working in a private company and suffered with fracture of pelvis fracture with sacroiliac joint injury bilaterally with left femur intertrochanteric fracture with injury to bladder and reproductive organs and to bowel. The disability caused to the petitioner may affect on her occupation to some extent. Hence, I hold that the petitioner sustained disability of 30 % to the whole body.
The petitioner has produced her Aadhaar card marked at Ex.P12, as per this document the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 13-08-2000. The accident was occurred in the year-2022. So, as on the date of the accident the petitioner was aged 22 years.
As per Sarala Verma's case, the proper multiplier applicable to the age of petitioner is '18'. Hence, I inclined to award future loss of income at Rs.15,500 /- X SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022 12 X 18 X 30 % =Rs.10,04,400/- which is the total loss of future income.
e) FOOD AND NOURISHMENT AND CONVEYANCE; As per Ex.P11 & 14 discharge summaries, the petitioner took treatment as inpatient for a period of 24 days. As per wound certificate marked at Ex.P7 the injuries sustained by the petitioner are simple as well as grievous in nature. By considering the nature of the injuries and period she spent to overcome the pain and other allied effects of the accident. Hence looking to the treatment taken by the petitioner and injuries sustained she is entitled for compensation of Rs.90,000/- towards food and nourishment, conveyance.
f) ATTENDANT CHARGES: The petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the accident. The petitioner has spent 24 days in the hospital and there is no evidence or pleading in this regard to show that the petitioner is in need of attendant. But by considering the nature of the SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022 injuries as discussed above, it may be considered to award attendant charges at Rs.1,000/- per day i.e., Rs.24,000/- in total.
g) Towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life:
The petitioner admitted to the hospital for the injuries sustained by her, which might certainly have deprived her of the basic comforts and enjoyment. It is very important to note that the uterus of the petitioner is removed and she has no periods due to hysterectomy. A hysterectomy is a a surgical procedure to remove the uterus, or womb and common treatment for many conditions that affect a woman's reproductive organs. After a hysterectomy, a woman can no longer have children and menstruation stops. The ovaries generally continue to produce hormones, although in some cases they may have reduced activity. Some hysterectomies also include removal of the ovaries, so the supply of essential female hormones is greatly reduced. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022 petitioner when the uterus is removed, the body of the female still produces the harmones which certainly effects the life style of a female. If, the driver of the bus has close the door of the bus or not moved his bus while the petitioner was getting down, the petitioner life was not going to be held up like this. The petitioner got reproductive disability where for every woman they have the strong feeling towards their family life and to have children. Therefore, it is just and proper to award a reasonable sum of Rs.5,00,000/- under this head.
H) LOSS OF MARRIAGE PROSPECTS : The PW.1/ petitioner had contended that due to the injuries sustained by her, she is unable to find a fiance for marriage. The evidence of doctor witness goes to show that the petitioner has got severe permanent disabilities and also her uterus is removed due to hysterectomy. In fact there is a severe & permanent damage with little chance of any further meaningful recovery. To put it in other words the chances of improvement in the condition SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022 of the petitioner are feeble. In this view of the matter the petitioner is rendered permanently incapable of getting conceived in future which would thus affect her future prospects both professionally and personally. Obviously the matrimonial prospects of the victim/petitioner who suffered grievous accidental injuries, would also be severely affected. To put it differently the marital prospects of the petitioner are bleak. If a person chooses to be a bachelor throughout her life, it is her wish.
Whereas if a person is compelled to remain so because of an unfortunate accident then that will lead to mental agony. In this regard in the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2021 ACJ 2645 in the case of Divisional Manager, National Insurance, Company V/s Akash and another wherein it is held for loss of marriage prospects to the tune of Rs.5,00,000. In the instant case also as the petitioner suffered with 100% of reproductive disability by following the above said dictum of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, since the SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022 petitioner is aged only 22 years, this court deems it fit to award compensation under this head and the same is fixed at Rs. 5,00,000/-.
Future medical expenses: Even though the petitioner pleaded that she is in need of another Rs.5,00,000/- for future medical expenses, no evidence is placed in this regard. Hence, the petitioner is not entitle for any compensation under this head.
Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads:
a. Towards pain and agony Rs. 3,00,000/- b. Towards medical expenses Rs. 77,300/- c. Towards loss of income during Rs. 93,000/-
laid up period d. Towards disability Rs. 10,04,400/-
e. Towards food, nourishment and Rs. 90,000/-
conveyance f. Towards attendant charges Rs. 24,000/- g. Towards loss of amenities Rs. 5,00,000/- h. Towards loss of marriage Rs. 5,00,000/-
prospects
i. Towards future medical expenses NIL
Total Rs.25,88,700/-
SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022
27. Liability:- According to the petitioner the respondent is the owner and there is a internal insurance to the offending vehicle. Hence, the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 6% p.a Accordingly, this issue answered in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.3:
28. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for total compensation amount of Rs.25,88,700/- (Rupees Twenty five lakhs eighty eight thousand seven hundred only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the realization from respondents.
SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022 The respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount within 60 days from the date of this order.
Out of total compensation amount awarded to the Petitioner, 50% of the same to be released in favour of petitioner through E- payment on her proper identification and remaining 50% to be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of three years, in her name.
Advocate fee is fixed at 1,500/-.
Draw up award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 25th day of January, 2025) Digitally signed by KANCHI KANCHI MAYANNA MAYANNA GOUTAM Date: 2025.02.11 GOUTAM 11:30:49 +0530 (Kanchi Mayanna Goutam) XIX ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for petitioners:
PW.1 Shwetha T. PW.2 Sri. Manikanta N. PW.3 Dr. Bharath Raj R. SCCH-17 MVC No.5051/2022
List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P1 : FIR Ex.P2 : Complaint Ex.P3 & 4 : Spot mahazar along with sketch Ex.P5 & 6 : IMV notice and reply Ex.P7 : Wound certificate Ex.P8 : IMV report Ex.P9 : Charge sheet Ex.P10 : Police intimation Ex.P11 : Discharge summary Ex.P12 : Notarised copy of Aadhaar card. Ex.P13 : Medical bills Ex.P14 : Discharge summary Ex.P15 : Authorisation letter Ex.P16 & 17: MLC and police intimation Ex.P18 : Inpatient case details Ex.P19 : Clinical notes Ex.P20 : X-ray
List of witnesses examined for Respondents:
RW.1 Sri Umesha K S. List of documents marked on behalf of the Respondents:
Ex.Rl : Driving license
KANCHI Digitally signed by KANCHI
MAYANNA GOUTAM
MAYANNA Date: 2025.02.11 11:30:54
GOUTAM +0530
(Kanchi Mayanna Goutam)
XIX ADDL.JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & MACT
BENGALURU.