On 21st August 2016, Ram Singh, a school teacher was travelling from Lucknow to Gorukhpur by a

motor bus of UPSRTC. He sustained serious injuries due to the negligence,misconduct and wrongful
act of Mohd Hakim(Driver of Bus) and Sunder Lal(Mechanic attached to the bus and was driving
the bus at the tome of accident).

Ram Singh was admitted to Government Hospital, Gorakhpur alongwith other casualities. He lost
one of his hands permanently. His medical treatment continued in different hospitals till 30 th July
2019 and during this period he could not perform his teaching work, household duties and
agricultural cultivation.

Now, Ram Singh wants to file case against UPSRTC, driver and mechanic of the bus. Write a plaint
for the plaintiff on the basis of abovementioned facts.Also prepare a Written Statement for
Defendant No. 1:UPSRTC, answering the plaint above in light of following contention of the
defendant:
The primary plea of the Defendant No.1 is that Defendant No.3-Sunder Lal was merely a mechanic
of the bus and he was not authorised to drive the bus. There occured some mechanical defect in the
bus suddenly and Sunder Lal was authorised to cure the defect only but after curing the defect he
took the steering wheel and drove the bus. Therefore, corporation UPSRTC is not liable vicariously.

Prepare the Plaint and Written Statement.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

MAC No:_______ of 2019

Ram Singh,Gorakhpur,Uttar Pradesh

..............................................................Petitioner
Versus
1.Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC)
2.Mohd. Hakim,Driver of Bus UP-3D-CK-1066
3.SunderLal,(Mechanicofbus)

................................................................ Defendants

Petition Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the Grant of Compensation to the
Petitioner

Most Respectfully Showeth-:

1. That the plaintiff is a school teacher and was travelling by a motor bus from Lucknow to
Gorakhpur by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (herein afterwards mentioned
as “UPSRTC”) on 21st August 2016.

2. The defendant No. 1 is the State Transportation Corporation and owner of the bus while
Defendant No. 2 is the bus driver on the other hand Defendant No.3 is the mechanic attached to
the bus and he was the one who unauthorisely was driving the bus at the time of accident.

3. That on the 21st August 2016,- while the plaintiff was travelling by a motor bus from Lucknow
to Gorakhpur in the UPSRTC-Bus No. UP-A3-CK-1066 due to the negligence ,misconduct and
wrongful act of the defendants, the plaintiff lost one of his hands permanently and was admitted
in the Government hospital, Gorakhpur alongwith the other casualities.

4. That the plaintiff’s medical treatment continued in different hospitals till 30th July 2019 and
during this period he has incurred pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages.

5. That the plaintiff has, as a result of the injuries, been permanently incapacitated by one of the
most vital part of the body that is hand and has been put to great expense in his treatment. He has
had to absent himself from duty on account of these injuries from the date of accident.

6. That in consequence of the accident the plaintiff was not been able to perform his teaching
work, household duties towards their family and agricultural cultivation, due to which, the
plaintiff has suffered a huge loss of income and also vast amount of money has been spent on the
treatment of the plaintiff.The plaintiff has suffered inconvenience, hardship, discomfort,
disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. No amount of compensation can restore the
physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by courts that whenever any amount
is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object
is to compensate such injury "so far as money can compensate" because it is impossible to equate
the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken
and shattered physical frame.

7. That the plaintiff humbly submits that there has been negligence on the part of the defendants
as the defendants failed in their duty to care towards the plaintiff that is to say the defendants
made a breach of that duty due to which the plaintiff has suffered damages. In R.D. Hatangadi v.
Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., I (1995) ACC 281, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-“ while
fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident the damages have to be
assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those
which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of
money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are capable of being assessed by
arithmetical calculations.”
8. That the cause of action for the suit arose on the 21st August 2016, when the accident took
place.

9. That the accident took place at Gorakhpur which is within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble
tribunal.

10. That the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee is Rs 840 and is been
attached herewith the petition.

11. That no suit between the same parties is pending or has been decide by any court of law in
respect of the suit.

Prayer:-

It is therefore, most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble tribunal that a decree of Rs. 75,00,000/-
must be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants with the cost of the suit and
any other relief which this Hon’ble tribunal deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.

Plaintiff
Ram Singh

Through Counsel:Palak Sharma

Verification:
I, Ram Singh, do verify that the facts stated in the above paragraphs of the above plaint are true
to my personal knowledge and are believed by me on information received to be correct. I
append my signature to this verification at Lucknow on __ July, 2019.

Plaintiff

Ram Singh