Attempting to board before a bus stops does not absolve its driver of negligence.

On 17 August 2018, while the appellant was boarding a KSRTC bus, the bus moved and he fell; its rear wheel ran over his right leg, causing injuries.

He received inpatient treatment at Suguna Hospital after first being taken to Nelamangala Government Hospital.

He claimed that he worked as a helper and earned ₹13,000 per month, but produced no documents supporting his income.

The Tribunal dismissed his claim petition in MVC No. 7455/2018.

He appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim despite the evidence concerning the bus driver’s negligence and the accident.

If the claim was maintainable, what compensation was payable for the injuries, disability, treatment, and related losses.

The Court considered the appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

It referred to the police final report following registration of offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code as evidence supporting the finding of negligence.

For quantifying compensation, the Court applied a notional monthly income, a multiplier based on the appellant’s age, and the assessed disability, and considered medical expenses and other heads of loss.

The judgment cites no precedent.

The Court held that the appellant’s admission that he attempted to board before the bus stopped did not, by itself, absolve the driver of responsibility.

It relied on the police final report and the circumstances of the accident to conclude that the driver’s negligence had contributed to the injury; it also stated that any contributory negligence by the appellant would not alone absolve the vehicle’s insurer.

For compensation, the Court used a notional income of ₹12,500 per month, assessed disability at 10% for the calculation, and applied a multiplier of 16.

It added amounts for pain and suffering, loss of earnings, amenities, food and conveyance, medical expenses, and future implant-removal expenses.

The Court awarded ₹5,00,521 with interest at 6% per annum, directing the respondent to deposit 50% of the award within eight weeks; the Tribunal was directed to release the deposited amount to the appellant on proper identification.

The order specifies interest from the date of the appeal for the award and, for the directed deposit, from the date of filing the appeal.