The Divisional Manager vs Khajabee Alias Kahajama And Anr

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 19165 Kant
Judgement Date : 31 July, 2024

Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Manager vs Khajabee Alias Kahajama And Anr on 31 July, 2024

Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda

Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda

                                              -1-
                                                           NC: 2024:KHC-K:5498
                                                       MFA No. 200901 of 2019




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                     KALABURAGI BENCH

                            DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024

                                           BEFORE

                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

                        MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200901 OF 2019 (MV-I)

                   BETWEEN:

                   THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
                   KSRTC HAVERI BUS DEPOT
                   HAVERI THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
                   NEKRTC SHAHAPUR DEPOT
                   SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADGIR.
                   THROUGH AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.

                                                                  ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.   KHAJABEE ALIAS KAHAJAMA
Digitally signed
                        W/O BASHEER SAB BASEER AHMED
by RENUKA               ALIAS ABDUL BASEER AHMED KURESHI
Location: HIGH          AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COOLI & PRIVATE WORK,
COURT OF                R/O. DIGGIBASE, SHAHAPUR,
KARNATAKA
                        DIST:YADGIR-585101.

                   2.   SHARANABASAPPA
                        S/O CHANDRARAYA PUJARI
                        AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: KSRTC BUS DRIVER
                        BATCH NO.431, R/O. HAVERI BUS DEPOT
                        AT PRESENT: GOGI (K) TQ:SHAHAPUR
                        DIST. YADGIR-585101.
                                                               ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SRI GANESH NAIK, ADV. FOR R1;
                    NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
                              -2-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC-K:5498
                                     MFA No. 200901 of 2019




     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND THE AWARD DATED
17.09.2018 IN MVC NO.72/2016 PASSED BY SR. CIVIL JUDGE
AND ADDL. MACT AT SHAHAPUR AND EXONERATE THE
APPELLANT FORMAT E LIABILITY TO PAY COMPENSATION TO
THE RESPONDENTS.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

                     ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)

1. The appeal is by the NEKRTC challenging the compensation of Rs.6,56,000/- awarded to respondent No.1, for the injuries suffered by her in the accident dated 18.10.2015.

2. The respondent No.1-insurer instituted a proceeding under Section 166 of M.V.Act, contending that when she was standing by the side of the road, the bus owned by the appellant and driven by its driver-respondent No.2 hit her and as a result she suffered grievous injuries. -3-

NC: 2024:KHC-K:5498 MFA No. 200901 of 2019

3. It was the case of the NEKRTC that the accident occurred as a result of the claimant suddenly crossing the road and she was responsible for the accident and she could not claim compensation for her own wrong.

4. The Tribunal taking note of the fact that no evidence was adduced on behalf of NEKRTC to establish the negligence on the part of the claimant and also taking into consideration the police had initiated the proceedings against the driver has proceeded to hold that the driver of the bus was responsible and had awarded the aforementioned compensation of Rs.6,56,000/-.

5. In the light of the admitted fact that the driver of the bus who was employed by the appellant was not examined to establish that the claimant was responsible for the accident by suddenly crossing the road, the entire defence put forth by the NEKRTC that the claimant was negligent would have to fail.

-4-

NC: 2024:KHC-K:5498 MFA No. 200901 of 2019

6. The Tribunal, in my view, was justified in holding that the driver of the bus was responsible, having regard to the other material that had been produced, such as FIR, charge sheet etc. If the best witness i.e., the driver of the bus was not examined to establish the negligence on the part of the claimant, the appellant being the employer cannot contend that there was no negligence on the part of his employee, the driver.

7. I find no grounds to entertain the appeal and the appeal is therefore dismissed.

Sd/-

(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23