1 M.V.C.830/2016

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
AMACT-15, AT SHIKARIPURA


Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2018


PRESENT
Smt.Preeth.J, B.A(L)., LL.B
Sr. Civil Judge & JMFC, Shikaripura


MVC. No.830/2016

Petitioner/s:-

Smt. Ningamma w/o Late Govindappa,
Aged about 55 years,
r/o # 37, Amatekoppa village Shikaripura Taluk.

By Sri. P. J. V., Advocate)

V/s

Respondents:-

1.
N. Raghu s/o Nagappa, Aged about 61 years,
r/o Rajalakshmi Nilaya, Malera Keri,
Shikaripura Town,
[Owner of Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-15/A-0423)

2.
Shashikumar Malavalli s/o Subhash,

Aged about 23 years,

r/o Emiganoor village, Kachavi post,
Hirekerur Taluk, Haveri District.
[Driver of Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-15/A-0423)

2 M.V.C.830/2016

3.
United India Ins., Co., Ltd.,

Post Box No.21, Sagar – 577 401

Shivamogga District.


Police No.2404033115P105222733

Valid form 08.08.2015 to 07.08.2016.

(R-1 and 2 Exparte)
(R-3 by Sri. G. M. G., Adv.,)



J U D G M E N T


This claim petition is U/Sec.166 of Motor
Vehicles Act directed against the respondents on
account of the injuries caused to the petitioner in a
road traffic accident.

2. The petition averments in brief are that, on
26-06-2016 at 9.00 am., the petitioner along with her
son was travelling in the Bus bearing registration
No.KA-15/A-0423 namely Rajalaxmi to Shivamogga for
her medical checkup. The petitioner sat on the 5th seat
of the bus. When the bus reached the place called

3 M.V.C.830/2016

Bapuji College on Savalanga road, the 2nd respondent
being the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and
negligent manner so as to over take another bus which
was proceeding in front of the said bus. The 2nd
respondent drove the bus in a very same speed in the
place where the road repair work was going on. The
result of which, the petitioner was thrown on the floor
of the bus from the seat where she was sitting. Due to
the same, the petitioner sustained injuries over her
spine, head and waist. Immediately the petitioner was
shifted to Nanjappa hospital at Shivamogga for
treatment and she had taken treatment as inpatient in
the said hospital. The petitioner was working as a
coolie at the time when the accident had taken place
and she used to earn a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month.
During the period of taking treatment by the petitioner
she could not go for her coolie work. Even though the
petitioner has taken treatment she is unable to do any

4 M.V.C.830/2016

work as she used to do before the accident. The
petitioner has spent a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for the
medical
treatment,
she
requires
a
sum
of
Rs.2,00,000/- for further treatment. She has spent
huge money for her treatment and other expenses due
to the accident. Therefore, the respondents are jointly
and
severally
liable
to
pay
compensation
of
Rs.9,60,000/- with interest thereon.

3.
The 1st and 2nd respondent have not
appeared before this Tribunal inspite of service of
notice on them. As such, they are placed exparte.
The 3rd respondent being the insurance company
appeared through its counsel filed the objection
wherein it is admitted that the vehicle in question
bearing Reg.No.KA-15/0423 was insured with this
respondent and policy was in force as on the date of
accident. However, liability if any of this respondent
is subject to terms and conditions of the policy issued.

5 M.V.C.830/2016

Further it is denied the averments made in the petition
with regard to age, occupation and income of the
petitioner, injuries sustained, treatment taken and the
expenditure for treatment and the manner of the
accident in which the petitioner has sustained
injuries. It is further contended that the vehicle in
question had not valid permit to ply on the road and
also had no valid fitness certificate to the said vehicle.
Further the 2nd respondent had no valid driving licence
to drive the vehicle in question as on the date of
accident. Further the compensation claimed by the
petitioner is exorbitant one. Hence prays to dismiss
the petition against this respondent.


4.
The following issues came to be framed in
this case;
1]. Whether the petitioner proves that he
has sustained injuries in the Motor Vehicle
accident that occurred on 26.06.2016 at
about 9.00 am., near Bapuji college, on
Savalanga road, Shivamogga city. Due to
rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing

6 M.V.C.830/2016

No.KA-15/A-423
by
its
driver
2nd
respondent
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation as prayed for If yes, what
is the quantum of amount and who is
liable to pay
(3) What order or award



5.
In order to prove the above issues the
petitioner has got examined herself as PW.1 and
marked
documents
at
Ex.P.1
to
Ex.P.28.
The
respondents let in no evidence. Arguments of the both
the sides were heard, perused the records and
evidence.

6. My findings on the above issues are as follows:



Issue No.1: In the Affirmative
Issue No 2: Answered accordingly.

Issue No 3: As per final order for the




Following

R E A S O N S
7. Issue No.1:-
PW.1 Ningamma is the petitioner and injured.
There is no serious dispute as to the involvement of

7 M.V.C.830/2016

offending bus bearing Reg. No.KA-15/A-0423 in the
accident. In order to explain the actionable negligence
of the driver of the offending bus, PW.1 has filed her
affidavit explaining the vivid pictures of the accident
that took place near Bapuji college, Shivamogga Town.
As per the evidence of PW.1, the respondent No.2
being the driver of the offending bus moved the same
rash and negligently without taking proper care of the
passengers. As such, the petitioner being one of the
passengers fell off the seat and sustained the injuries.
PW.1 further deposed about the nature of injuries
sustained by her, treatment taken by her and the
amount spent by her for the treatment etc. In support
of her claim and to prove the rash and reckless
driving of respondent No.2 has relied upon the police
records such as copies of FIR, complaint, spot
mahazar,
IMV
report
and
police
notice
in
Cr.No.108/2016
of
East
Traffic
Police
station,

8 M.V.C.830/2016

Shivamogga which are Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. Apart from
that
PW.1
has
also
wound
certificate,
Bills,
prescriptions, discharge summary which are Ex.P.6,
Ex.P.9 to 22, Ex.P.23 and Ex.P.24.

8. PW.1 has been cross-examined from the side of
3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent by cross examining
PW.1 has denied its liability to pay compensation which
facts have been denied by PW.1. Even though
Respondent No.3 has cross examined PW.1 at length
but nothing worthy has been demonstrated before the
Tribunal to say that evidence of PW.1 is not reliable or
trustworthy. On perusal of the oral evidence of PW.1 in
conjunction with Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 indicates that the
Traffic Police have prosecuted the driver of the
offending vehicle for the reckless driving for the
offences punishable U/sec.279 and 337 of IPC. Thus,
the evidence on record on behalf of the petitioner point

9 M.V.C.830/2016

out and establish the wrong doing by the driver of the
offending vehicle in which the petitioner has no role to
contribute. Hence it is possible to deduct the actionable
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending
vehicle only. Ex.P.6 i.e., wound certificate goes to
deduct that as a direct result of the accident petitioner
has sustained injuries. In the result Issue No.1 is
answered in the affirmative.

9. Issue No.2:-

In view of my finding on issue No.1 that the
petitioner has sustained injuries as a direct result of
the accident, she is entitled to claim compensation. The
petitioner has given evidence to the effect of her
sustaining various injuries. The wound certificate
issued by Nanjappa Hospital is marked as Ex.P.6. The
discharge summary is also produced and the same is
marked as Ex.P.24. From these documents it goes to

10 M.V.C.830/2016

show that the petitioner has sustained injury on her
back. And it also goes to show that she had also
complained about back pain and head ache when she
was admitted to the hospital immediately after the
accident. The documents suggests that the injury is
grievous in nature.

10. Ex.P.24 discharge summary emerges that the
petitioner
has
taken
treatment
as
inpatient
at
Nanjappa Hospital from 26-06-2016 to 27-06-2016.
From the medical bills produced and marked by the
petitioner it goes to show that he has spent some
money for the treatment of the injuries sustained by
her due to the RTA. The bills and prescriptions are
marked as Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.22 and Ex.P.23.

11. From the bills placed before this Tribune it goes
to show that the petitioner has spent some money for
purchase some medicines from the pharmacy outside

11 M.V.C.830/2016

Nanjappa hospital also and she has also spent some
money for medicines even after her discharge from the
hospital. On calculation the bills are amounting to
Rs.13,586/-.

12.
The petitioner claims that she was treated as
inpatient for 2 days and she has sustained physical
disability affecting her earning capacity, suffered loss of
amenities and discomforts due to injuries. In order to
explain the disability, the petitioner has not examined
any witness/doctor. Even from the material placed
before this Tribunal there is no evidence to that effect
except the self serving testimony of the petitioner.
From the overall documentary and oral evidence of
PW.1 it goes to show that the injuries are cured fully
and there is no disability to any extent.

13. The petitioner has claimed that she was working
as a coolie prior to the accident. She has not produced

12 M.V.C.830/2016

any document to substantiate the same. She has
deposed that she do not have any documents to show
that he was earning a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month
prior to the accident. As the injuries are fully cured and
as there is no fractures to any of the bones it can be
said that there is no difficulty for the petitioner to do
her job as an coolie. Unless there is cogent medical
evidence, the disability as claimed by the petitioner
cannot be accepted.

14. Regarding treatment and medical expenses
concerned,
the
petitioner
said
to
have
spent
Rs.2,00,000/- towards treatment and is in need of
Rs.2,00,000/- for future treatment. The documents
produced and marked by the petitioner for having
spent for treatment which comes up to Rs.13,586/-
only. Ex.P.18 discharge summary indicates that the
petitioner was inpatient in the hospital for a period of 2

13 M.V.C.830/2016

days as she got admitted to Nanjappa hospital on 26-
06-2016 and had taken treatment as inpatient till 27-
06-2016. The petitioner has claimed that she has spent
money towards attendant, spent money towards
traveling and other incidental expenses. Towards
travelling expenses, the petitioner has produced bills as
per Ex.P.26 and Ex.P.27 amounting to Rs.5,000/-. But
the petitioner has not examined the author of the said
documents or the owner of the said agency. As such,
the said bills cannot be taken into consideration as it
is. But on that ground alone it cannot be said that the
petitioner has not gone to the hospital on those dates.
The bills produced by the petitioner which indicates
that she had gone to Shivamogga for treatment, this
Tribunal also has to assess the travelling expenses to
go to Shivamogga from Shikaripura. Towards other
expenses no bills to that effect are placed before the
Tribunal. Hence travelling and incidental expenses on

14 M.V.C.830/2016

account of treatment of the petitioner will have to be
assessed on probability.

15.
The
petitioner
said
to
have
spent
Rs.2,00,000/- towards treatment and is in need of
Rs.2,00,000/- for future treatment. The petitioner has
produced medical bills, on calculation of the remaining
bill amount it comes around Rs.13,586/- only the same
is rounded up to Rs.14,000/- only. The documents
produced by the petitioner indicates that the petitioner
was inpatient in the hospital for a period of 2 days.
The petitioner has to spend money towards attendant
and other incidental expenses. For which, there is no
bills before the Tribunal. Hence incidental and
attendant expenses on account of treatment of the
petitioner will have to be assessed on probability.
Documents produced by the petitioner goes to show
that she is injured over her back on the spinal area. So
naturally there will be some discomfort for few days to

15 M.V.C.830/2016

move from one place to another for which she should
take the assistance of some other person. The
petitioner has suffered injuries on the spine area which
will certainly cause discomforts and loss of amenities
for which the petitioner is required to be compensated.
The petitioner though claiming that she used to earn a
sum of Rs.9,000/- per month, as there is no cogent
evidence, notional income is taken into consideration
and the same is assessed at Rs.7,000/-pm.

16. Now as to quantifying the compensation is
concerned, considering the nature of injuries, pain and
agony endured, considerable amount has been spent
towards treatment, the Tribunal is inclined to assess a
sum
of
Rs.30,000/-
towards
pain
and
agony,
Rs.15,000/- towards incidental expenses such as
attendant
charges,
conveyance,
food,
travelling
expenses etc., Taking into consideration the gravity of
the injury Tribunal inclines to assess a sum of

16 M.V.C.830/2016

Rs.10,000/- under the head loss of amenities and
discomfort. The injuries certainly kept the petitioner
away from the work and she being a coolie certainly
sustains loss of income during laid up period, and it is
assessed as 15 days and at the rate of Rs.7,000/-pm.,
and hence the loss of income during laid down period
comes to Rs.3,500/-. Hence, the petitioner is entitled
for a sum of Rs.3,500/- towards loss of income
during laid down period.

17. There is no evidence to show that the petitioner
is in need of future treatment to assess the
compensation under the said head. As there is no
disability, the petitioner is also not entitled for any
compensation under the said head.


17 M.V.C.830/2016


18.
Hence petitioner is entitled for compensation
under the following heads;

1 Towards pain and sufferings
Rs.30,000/-
2 Towards medical expenses
Rs.14,000/-
3 Towards
conveyance,
attendant
charges and food and nourishment
Rs.15,000/-
4 Towards loss of income during laid
down period
Rs.3,500/-
5 Towards loss of amenities and
discomfort
Rs.10,000/-

Total
Rs.72,500/-

Therefore this court holds that petitioner is entitled
for a compensation of Rs.72,500/-. It is just and
adequate under the facts and circumstances of the
case.

19.
As regarding liability is concerned, there is
no dispute that the offending vehicle was insured with
the 3rd respondent and the policy was in force as on the
date of accident. As such, all the respondents are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to
the petitioner along with interest at 9% per annum

18 M.V.C.830/2016

from the date of accident till the date of payment of
entire amount. The 3rd respondent is liable to
indemnify the remaining respondents in making
payment. Accordingly point No.2 is answered.

20. Issue No.3:-

In the light of findings given on Issue No.1 and 2,
my finding on this issue is as per the following final
order.

ORDER

The claim petition filed by the petitioner
is hereby allowed in part with costs.

The
petitioner
is
entitled
to
total
compensation
of
Rs.72,500/-
(Rupees
Seventy Two Thousand and Five Hundred
only).

It shall also carry an interest at 9% per
annum from the date of petition till the date
of deposit.

The Respondent No.3 shall deposit the
above sum within two months from the date
of award.


19 M.V.C.830/2016

As the amount awarded is meager, the
scheme of investment is dispensed with.

Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.

Draw award accordingly.


(Directly dictated to the Stenographer on computer, typed
by him, corrected by me and then pronounced by me in the
open court on this the 22nd of February, 2018)




(Preeth J),
Sr. Civil Judge and AMACT-15,
Shikaripura



ANNEXURE

List of witnesses examined for the petitioners:-

PW.1
:
Ningamma

List of documents marked for the petitioners:-

Ex.P.1
:
FIR
Ex.P.2
:
Complaint
Ex.P.3
:
Spot mahazar
Ex.P.4
:
IMV report
Ex.P.5
:
Accident intimation letter
Ex.P.6
:
Wound certificate

20 M.V.C.830/2016

Ex.P.7
:
ID card
Ex.P.8
:
Statement of witness
Ex.P.9to 22:
14 bills
Ex.P.23
:
Prescriptions
Ex.P.24
:
Discharge summary
Ex.P.25
:
Final bill
Ex.P.26
:
Follow up treatment
Ex.P.27


& Ex.P.28: Travelling bills


List of witnesses examined for the Respondents:-Nil -

List of documents marked for the respondents:- Nil-





Sr. Civil Judge and AMACT-15,
Shikaripura




Rs*