IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 424 of 2004(B) ----------------------- OPMV.1173/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------- BABY, S/O.PAPPU, THARAYIL HOUSE, ARIKIZHA KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SMT.ANNIE PAUL SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM. 2. FRANCY, S/O.ITTIACHAN, CHIRAYATHU HOUSE, CHITTISSERY KARA, NENMANI VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL, SC, KSRTC FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 424 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV) 1173/99. The claimant, a 58 year old man sustained injuries in a road accident while he was alighting from a K.S.R.T.C. Bus and his allegation is that the driver without any care moved the vehicle which resulted in his fall and sustainment of injuries. The Tribunal has considered the matter elaborately and had arrived at a decision that the place where the accident took place was not intended to be a bus stop. It is the contention of the K.S.R.T.C. that when the vehicle had been slowed down on account of the traffic congestion the claimant jumped down from the bus and that had resulted in the accident. One cannot rule out possibility of passengers hurrying to get down from public transport vehicles with the intention to reach their destination fast. It is a fundamental rule that the crew of the bus namely M.A.C.A. 424 OF 2004 -:2:- conductor and driver are expected to take the passengers safely to their place of destination. The conductor must be positioned in such a place that he does not authorize any passenger to stand on the foot-board when the vehicle is in movement. But to the utter dismay of all what is happening in the society is people are travelling in the foot-board inviting and resulting in serious accidents and injuries. But it will not absolve the responsibility of the crew of the bus to get away from the liability. An indication of the evidence of PW1 as discussed by the Tribunal would show that when the vehicle reached at a place called Nehru Park the conductor gave an announcement that those people who wants to get down at Kacherithazham may stand up and move towards the exit point. It was accordingly the present claimant also moved and later had fallen and had sustained injuries. If he had moved to the foot-board, there was a duty cast upon the conductor or driver not to permit the passenger to travel on the foot-board. Equally is the conduct of the claimant also. He did not even know whether the conductor had given a signal to stop the bus. Suppose the conductor had not M.A.C.A. 424 OF 2004 -:3:- given any signal to stop the bus and he attempts to get down from the bus it is very clear that he has contributed to the accident. So taking into consideration the entire materials available I feel this is a case where the crew of the bus and the claimant had equally contributed to the accident and therefore I fix the negligence at 50% on the K.S.R.T.C. driver and 50% on the claimant. 2. Now, turning to the compensation, the claimant was an inpatient in the hospital for 10 days from 16.6.99 to 26.6.99. He had a left frontal intra-cerebral hemorrhage and sub arachnoid hemorrhage. According to him he was dealing in automobile business and now I proceed to decide the compensation for the claimant. 3. The Tribunal itself has referred to the medical bills of Rs.9,200/- and therefore I award Rs.9,200/- towards medical expenses. The accident is of the year 1999 and fixing the income at Rs.1,500/- per month I award Rs.3,000/- towards loss of earnings. Towards extra nourishment and bystander's expenses I allow Rs.1,000/- towards damage to clothing and towards transportation M.A.C.A. 424 OF 2004 -:4:- expenses I award an amount of Rs.500/- together, towards pain and sufferings a sum of Rs.6,000/- is to be awarded considering the length of treatment and nature of injury sustained. Certainly the injury on the head thereafter would have caused problems to the person and there would have been loss of amenities and enjoyment in life, towards which I award Rs.4,000/-. Thus the claimant will be entitled to a compensation of Rs.23,700/- out of which 50% has to be deducted for his contributory negligence which means he would get Rs.11,850/-. In the result the MACA is allowed and the claimant is awarded a total compensation of Rs.11,850/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the first respondent is directed to deposit the same within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-