Bangalore District Court
Kumari. Ramya. R vs The Managing Director on 19 January, 2016
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL & V ADDITIONAL JUDGE
Court of Small Causes, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.
(SCCH.20)
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2016
Present: Smt.K.BHAGYA,
B.Com., LL.B.
V Addl. Small Causes Judge, & XXIV A.C.M.M.,
Member, M.A.C.T.,
Bengaluru.
M.V.C. No.5319 / 2014
PETITIONER : Kumari. Ramya. R.
D/o L. Ravi,
Aged about 19 years,
R/at: No.14/1-1, 1st Cross,
Grape Garden, Ejipura,
Bangalore.
(By Pleader Sri.B.R.Ravi.)
V/s
RESPONDENT: The Managing Director,
B.M.T.C. Motor Claims Hub,
Central offices,
Shanti Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 027.
(By Pleader Sri.Afzal Ahmed)
*****
2 SCCH - 20
MVC. 5319 / 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed the present petition U/Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying this Tribunal to award a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-, along with interest as compensation for the injuries sustained by her, in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case are that:
On 09-08-2013 at about 01-30 p.m. the petitioner was traveling as a passenger in a B.M.T.C. Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-01/FA-2280, towards Koramangala, and when the bus reached near Aishwarya Junction, 80 feet road, Koramangala, the driver stopped the bus for alighting the passengers, at that time, while the Petitioner was getting down, driver of the said bus suddenly moved the same in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the passengers, who are getting down. As a result of which, the Petitioner lost control and fell down, then the bus wheel ran over the
3 SCCH - 20 MVC. 5319 / 2014 both legs of the Petitioner, and she sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, She was shifted to St. John's Hospital, wherein she took treatment as an inpatient and also she again shifted to Manipal Hospital, wherein also she took treatment as an inpatient and spent more than Rs.10,00,000/- towards medical, conveyance, nourishment, food, transport and other charges. She has to spend a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for future medical expenses.
3. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale, healthy and aged about 19 years. She was a Student of 2nd Year PUC studying at Krupa Nidhi college and due to injuries, she lost her academic year. She was also doing Part time Work in Computer and earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. Due to said accident, the petitioner suffered pain and mental agony. She has lost her education, Sports, Job opportunities in the Department of Army, Police and Air force etc., and unable to carry on her duties, which she used to do prior to the accident.
4. The above said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the B.M.T.C. 4 SCCH - 20 MVC. 5319 / 2014 Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-01/FA-2280. The Respondent being the Owner -cum- Insurer of the offending vehicle, is liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioner and prayed to allow the petition.
5. After institution of the petition, summons and notice were served on the respondent. Respondent appeared before the tribunal through it's counsel and filed written statement contending that, the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. While admitting the ownership of the B.M.T.C. Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-01/FA-2280, denied almost all the averments made in the petition itself. It is further contended that, the accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the Petitioner only. It is further contended that, they have paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner as a interim compensation on humanitarian grounds. Further, this Respondent denied the age, occupation, earnings, mode of accident, vehicle involved and expenses incurred for the Petitioner. It is further contended that, the Compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly exorbitant and excessive. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5 SCCH - 20 MVC. 5319 / 2014
6. By over sight in this petition, this Tribunal has not framed Issues. So, now at the time of passing this Judgment, by going through the petition averments and the written statement contentions, this tribunal has framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, on 09-08-2013 at about 01-30 p.m. she traveling as a passenger in a B.M.T.C. Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-01/FA-2280, towards Koramangala, and when the bus reached near Aishwarya Junction, 80 feet road, Koramangala, the driver stopped the bus for alighting the passengers, at that time, while the Petitioner was getting down, driver of the said bus suddenly moved the same in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the passengers who are getting down. Due to forced impact, she lost control and fell down, then, the bus wheel ran over her legs, thereby, she sustained grievous injuries?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. What order or award?
6 SCCH - 20 MVC. 5319 / 2014
7. Petitioner in order to prove her case, got examined herself as P.W.1 and examined two witnesses as PW.2 and 3. They got marked 20 documents as per Ex.P1 to 20 on behalf of the petitioner's side. On the other hand, the Respondent got examined it's driver as Rw.1 and he has not marked any document on his behalf.
8. Heard arguments of learned Counsels for petitioner and respondent.
9. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.3 As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
10. Issue No.1:- As already observed above, it
is the case of the petitioner that, On 09-08-2013 at
about 01-30 p.m. the petitioner was traveling as a passenger in a B.M.T.C. Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-
7 SCCH - 20 MVC. 5319 / 2014 01/FA-2280, towards Koramangala, and when the bus reached near Aishwarya Junction, 80 feet road, Koramangala, the driver stopped the bus for alighting the passengers, at that time, while the Petitioner was getting down, driver of the said bus suddenly moved the same in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the passengers, who are getting down. As a result of which, the Petitioner lost control and fell down, then the bus wheel ran over the both legs of the Petitioner, and she sustained grievous injuries.
11. In order to prove this fact, the petitioner got examined as P.W.1 and got examined two witnesses as PW.2 and 3. They got marked 20 documents on her behalf as Ex.P1 to 20. Among them: Ex.P1 is the Copy of FIR, Ex.P1(a) is the Copy of Complaint, Ex.P2 is the Copy of Spot mahazar, Ex.P2(a) is the Copy of Spot Sketch, Ex.P3 is the Copy of IMV Report, Ex.P4 is the Copy of wound certificate, and Ex.P5 is the Copy of Charge sheet.
12. The copies of F.I.R. and Charge sheet clearly reveal that, a case has been registered against the driver of the B.M.T.C. Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-01/FA-
8 SCCH - 20 MVC. 5319 / 2014 2280, for the offence punishable U/Sec. 279, and 338 of I.P.C. and Section. 134(A) R/w Sec.187 of IMV Act.
13. The Respondent has taken contention that, the accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the Petitioner. To prove their contention, the Respondent got examined it's driver as Rw.1 and not produced any document on their behalf. But, Rw.1 in his Cross-examination clearly deposed as, " D ¢£À £Á£ÀÄ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ §¹ì£À ¨ÁV°UÉ ¯ÁQAUï ¹¸ÀÖA EvÀÄÛ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. "
Further he deposed as, D ¢£À CfðzÁgÀgÁzÀ gÀªÀÄå PɼÀUÉ E½AiÀÄĪÁUÀ , £Á£ÀÄ vÀPÀBt §¸Àì£ÀÄß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹zÀÝjAzÀ , F C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¸ÁQë ¸ÀévÀB £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ, D §¹ì£À ¨ÁV°£À ¯ÁQAUï ¹¸ÀÖA £À ¹éZï ¸Àj¬ÄgÀ°®è J£ÀÄßvÁÛgÉ. CzÀÄ ¸Àj¬ÄgÀ°®è JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÉÄPÁ¤PïUÉ w½¹zÀÉÝ. °TvÀªÁV AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀÉà zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß F §UÉÎ PÉÆnÖgÀ°®è.
Further he deposed as, C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ, PÉÆÃgÀªÀÄAUÀ®zÀ L±ÀéAiÀÄð dAPÀë£À°è §¸Àì£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ºÉÆgÀÀlÄ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÝ zÉÆÃ. ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj.
9 SCCH - 20 MVC. 5319 / 2014 Further he deposed as, £À£Àß vÀ¦¤ à AzÀ F C¥ÀWÁvÀ DVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ °TvÀªÁV ¥ÉÇð¸ÀjUÉ £Á£ÀÄ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖ®è. ªÀiËTPÀªÁV w½¹zÉÝ.
14. Under the above said facts and circumstances of the case, it can be held without any hesitation that, due to rash and negligent act / driving of the driver of the B.M.T.C. Bus bearing Reg.No.KA- 01/FA-2280, only this accident occurred. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
15. Issue No.2:- Petitioner has produced wound certificate at Ex.P.4 which shows that, petitioner had sustained the following injury:
1. Degloving injury over left lower thigh and Knee region, measuring 30 x 25 Cms., exposing underlying muscles, tendons and vessels.
2. Degloving injury over right lower thigh upto Calf region, measuring 20 x 10 cms, exposing underlying muscles and vessels.
It is opined that, injury No.1 and 2 are Grievous in nature. So, in view of my finding that, the petitioner has sustained injuries due to rash and negligent 10 SCCH - 20 MVC. 5319 / 2014 act/driving of the driver of the B.M.T.C. Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-01/FA-2280. By observing the Petitioner who has appeared before this Tribunal and also by going through the photographs of the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that, she is entitled for Rs.50,000-00 towards pain and suffering.
16. Here, it is the case of the petitioner that, she was shifted from the place of accident to the hospital and from there to her residence. The cause title of the petition reveal that, the petitioner is the resident of:-
R/at: No.14/1-1, 1st Cross, Grape Garden, Ejipura, Bangalore. Further, she contended that, she has been hospitalized at St.John's Hospital, and also Manipal Hospital, as an inpatient.
To prove this fact, she has produced:-
a) Discharge summary issued by the Manipal hospital at Ex.P6, which disclose that, the date of admission to the said hospital on 15-08-2013 and discharged on 04-10-2013.
b) Copy of Discharge (on request) summary issued by the St. John's hospital at Ex.P18, which disclose that, the date of admission to the said hospital on 09-08-2013 and discharged on 15-08-2013.
11 SCCH - 20 MVC. 5319 / 2014 Taking all these facts into consideration, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation of Rs.25,000-00 for the Conveyance, Attendant charges and Nourishing food etc., Accordingly, I award the same.
17. The petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the medical expenses. The petitioner has produced Medical bills at Ex.P7 amounting for a sum of Rs.5,96,156/- only. She has also produced Prescriptions at Ex.P8. So, by considering nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and also by considering said bills and Prescriptions, which bears seal and signature of the concerned authority and the doctor, this tribunal award Rs.5,96,000/- only under the head of Medical expenses.
18. Here, the petitioner's say is that, she was studying in 2nd year PUC and also doing part time work in Computer, at Silicon Computer Academy, and earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. In order to prove this fact, the Petitioner has produced certificate issued by said Silicon Computer Academy, which is marked at 12 SCCH - 20 MVC. 5319 / 2014 Ex.P10, which clearly disclose that, " Ms.Ramya.R., residing in Viveknagar, Bangalore, has been working with us for the past 2 years (till 8th August, 2013). She has been working as a Faculty and Drawing Rs.8,000/- p.m. "
19. She has also got examined the witness, who has issued this Ex.P10, as PW.2, who is Smt. Uma Rao. In her Chief examination, she has sworn to the effect that, " The above named petitioner had joined the above said studies centre, wherein she had completed her course in Computer applications and thereafter she started to work in the said Centre, as a Data Operator, since, from the year 2013, and earning a monthly salary of Rs.8,000/-. "
Pw.2 in her Cross-examination has clearly deposed as, " We used to pay the salary by Cash only. We have a Salary book. In that book we have mentioned payments. Our accounts audited by Auditor. I can produce the book, in which I have taken the signature of the Petitioner. "
13 SCCH - 20 MVC. 5319 / 2014 Further she deposed as, " Our Institution works from 9-00 a.m. to 8-30 p.m. She was working in our institution from 4-00 p.m. to 8-30 p.m."
Hence, by considering the evidence of PW.2, the age and occupation of the petitioner, this tribunal can infer that, the Petitioner was earning Rs.8,000-00 p.m.
20. Here, contention of the petitioner is that, she has suffered pain and mental agony. She is unable to carry on her duties, which she used to do prior to accident. To prove said fact, the petitioner got examined a witness as PW.3, who is Dr. Sunil Kumar. K.S. working as Plastic Surgeon in Manipal hospital, Bangalore. He has assessed the disability at 20% to the whole body.
PW.3 in his Cross-examination has deposed as, " The said deformity has not been improved. She has taken the Physiotherapy treatment as per my Advice. There is no chance of growing the muscle, as it was a Crush injury."
14 SCCH - 20 MVC. 5319 / 2014 This Tribunal had also seen the Petitioner. She has not yet recovered properly. She finds it difficult to walk, sit, and stand. She is a young Girl. The certificates produced by her reveal that, she was a sports girl.
So, by considering the evidence of PW.3 and the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner, this tribunal has consider the disability of the Petitioner at the rate of 20% to the whole body.
21. As per the petition, age of the petitioner was 19 years at the time of accident. She has not produced any documents to prove her age. In the absence of any such age proof document, the medical records produced by the petitioner has to be taken into consideration to prove the age of the petitioner at the time of accident. As per Ex.P4 wound certificate and Ex.P6 Discharge summary age of the petitioner was 18 at the time of accident. So, the age of the petitioner was 18 at the time of accident. Then the proper multiplier is 18. So, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the head, future loss of earnings 15 SCCH - 20 MVC. 5319 / 2014 due to permanent disability, which comes under the following terms:-
8000 x 12 x 18 x 20% = 3,45,600/-
22. Here, the petitioner has sought for expenses towards future medicine. Regarding this aspect, the Petitioner got examined PW.3, who is Dr.Sunil Kumar K.S. PW.3 in his Cross-examination deposed as, " There is no chance of growing the muscle, as it was a crush injury." Further, in his chief examination, PW.3 has clearly stated as, " Needs tissue expansion for (R) politeal reconstruction which costs Rs.1.5 to 2.0 lakhs." Under such circumstances, this tribunal would award only Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of future medical expenses. (Which do not carry any interest).
23. Here, the Petitioner also sought for amount under the head of loss of Marriage Prospectus. As already observed above, the Petitioner is a young girl.
She has sustained a very bad injury to her both leg. By going through the Photographs produced by the Petitioner, they reveal she might have lost her marriage 16 SCCH - 20 MVC. 5319 / 2014 prospectus. Hence, I award a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- under the head Loss of Marriage Prospectus. (Which do not carry any interest).
24. During the treatment and also during the bed rest, the petitioner might have suffered a lot and she has produced 11 photographs, which clearly disclose that, she has sustained injuries to her both legs, which might have caused discomfort during the treatment period and rest period. Hence, I award Rs.25,000-00 under the head of loss of amenities of life.
25. So for the above said reasons and discussions, I award the compensation under the following heads as follows:
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000-00
2. Conveyance, Nourishment Rs. 25,000-00 Food, attendant charges etc.,
3. Medical expenses Rs. 5,96,000-00
4. Loss of future income, Rs. 3,45,600-00
5. Future medical expenses Rs. 1,00,000-00
6. Loss of Marriage Prospectus. Rs. 2,50,000-00
7. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 25,000-00 Total Rs. 13,91,600-00 17 SCCH - 20 MVC. 5319 / 2014
26. As already observed above, Respondent contended that, they have paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner as an interim compensation on humanitarian grounds and the same is admitted by the Petitioner, in her Cross-examination. Hence, out of aforesaid Total compensation amount, an amount of Rs.10,000/- has to be deducted. Which comes as like :- Rs.13,91,600/- - 10,000/- = 13,81,600/-. So, the Respondent being the owner -cum- Insurer of the offending vehicle, is liable to pay the total compensation amount of Rs.13,81,600/- with interest only to the Petitioner.
27. In view of the slashing rate of interest on term deposit in Nationalized banks, awarding of 9% interest would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.2.
28. Issue No.3 : In view of the discussions made on above said issue Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The petition is partly allowed with costs.
18 SCCH - 20 MVC. 5319 / 2014 The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.13,81,600/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of its realization.
(Compensation towards Future medical expenses & Loss of Marriage prospectus do not carry any interest).
The Respondent is liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount with interest to the petitioner. Further, Respondent is also directed to deposit the same within 60 days from the date of this order.
After the deposit, out of the compensation amount, the Petitioner is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.7,81,600/- with interest in cash, and the remaining amount with interest has to be deposited in her name, in any nationalized bank, for a period of Two years.
19 SCCH - 20 MVC. 5319 / 2014 Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000-00.
Draw Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of January 2016).
(K.BHAGYA) V ASCJ & XXIV A.C.M.M., Member, MACT, Mayo Hall unit, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for petitioner:
PW.1 : Kum.Ramya.R. PW.2 : Uma Rao. PW.3 : Dr.Sunil Kumar. K.S.
Documents marked for Petitioner Ex.P1 : Copy of FIR, Ex.P1(a) : Copy of Complaint, Ex.P2 : Copy of Spot mahazar, Ex.P2(a) : Copy of Spot Sketch, Ex.P3 : Copy of IMV Report, Ex.P4 : Copy of wound certificate, 20 SCCH - 20 MVC. 5319 / 2014 Ex.P5 : Copy of Charge sheet, Ex.P6 : Discharge summary, Ex.P7 : Medical bills, Ex.P8 : Prescriptions, Ex.P9 : Certificate issued by Silicon computer Academy, Ex.P10 : Certificate issued by Silicon computer Academy, regarding income and avocation of the petitioner.
Ex.P11 : Merit certificate, stands in the name of Kum. Rama Gayathri.
Ex.P12 : Annual Spots day certificate issued by Chinmaya Vidyalaya, Koramangala, Bangalore, Ex.P13 To 16 : Annual sports meet certificate issued by Holy saint educational institutions, Ex.P17 : 10 Photographs, Ex.P17(a) : One C.D., Ex.P18 : Discharge summary copy, Ex.P19 : Inpatient record, Ex.P20 : C.T. Scan report.
21 SCCH - 20 MVC. 5319 / 2014 Witnesses examined for respondents:
Rw.1 : K.M. Somashekar.
Documents marked for respondents:
- Nil -
(K.BHAGYA) V ASCJ & XXIV A.C.M.M., Member, MACT, Mayo Hall unit, Bengaluru.