The court applied the Motor Vehicles Act to determine liability and compensation for injuries sustained in a bus accident, emphasizing the severity of the injuries and the deceased's notional income to award compensation.

The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/second petitioner against the Award and Decree, dated 16.10.2006, made in M.C.O.P.No.258 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Pantruti, awarding a compensation of Rs.59,568/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation.

2. Having not been satisfied with the said Award and Decree, the appellant/second petitioner has filed the above appeal praying for additional compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

3. The short facts of the case are as follows:

The first petitioner was working as a supervisor in Aziz Exchange Company in Dubai and earning a sum of Rs.14,000/-per month. He came to India in the month of June, 1999. He came to Bombay to get visa to go to Dubai, but was informed that he will get the visa only after a month. So, he boarded the first respondents bus bearing registration No.KA01 C9990, at Bombay Datra bus stand on 02.01.2001, in order to go to Bangalore. While the said bus was proceeding at P.V.Road (within Karnataka State) and had passed Shingatha Village, on 03.01.2001, at 4.30 p.m. the driver of the said bus drove the bus at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a lorry, lost control of the bus and dashed the bus subsequently on a road side tree. As a result of this the bus turned turtle. Due to this, the first petitioner sustained severe injuries all over his body. As a result of injuries the petitioner was not able to move his legs and arms and the portion of his body below his chest and also been paralysed. Due to this, the petitioner is unable to control his bowel movements and excretion of urine and he is bed-ridden. He spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- on medical expenses. As such, the petitioner had claimed a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-with interest and costs from the respondents, who are the owner and the insurer of the said bus involved in the accident, under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

4. Subsequent to the filing of the petition, the first petitioner took treatment at Hospitals in Chennai, Cuddalore and Nellikuppam, but in spite of treatment, the first petitioner succumbed to his injuries on 20.12.2002. The second and third petitioners, who are the wife and sister of the deceased first petitioner have been added as necessary parties in the claim case as they are dependants of the first petitioner.

5. The second respondent, the Oriental Insurance Company Limitted, Pondicherry has resisted the claim denying the averments in the claim regarding the manner of the accident. It has been stated that there was a huge parcel (luggage) on the top of the bus and that the same had been hit by the branches of a tree, while the bus was proceeding on the road. As a result of the impact, the bus driver lost his control of the bus. As such, it has been submitted that the accident was not caused due to any fault on the part of the bus driver.

6. The second respondent has also not admitted the averments in the claim regarding the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioners and has stated that this should be proved through documentary evidence. It has also been submitted that the first respondents bus bearing registration No.KA01 C9990 had not been insured with them at the time of accident. It was also submitted that the route permit of the bus, driving licence of the driver of the first respondent and the registration documents should be produced by the petitioners to establish their case. The second respondent has also denied the averments in the claim regarding the age, income and occupation of the first petitioner.

7. It has been submitted that in the claim, it has been stated that the first petitioner came to India in the month of June, 1999 and arranged to get the visa renewed in the second week of December, 2000, in Mumbai. The second respondent has pointed out that if the peti