Bylanjinappa vs The Managing Director
2021 Latest Caselaw 247 Kant

                                1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                          PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                               AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

                   M.F.A. NO.1346 OF 2017
                               C/W
     M.F.A. NO.1347 OF 2017, M.F.A. NO.1348 OF 2017 (MV)


M.F.A. NO.1346 OF 2017
BETWEEN:

1.      BYLANJINAPPA
        S/O LATE MUNEERAPPA
        AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

2.      SMT. MUNIYAMMA
        W/O BYLANJINAPPA
        AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

        BOTH ARE R/AT NO.29
        JAKKASANDRA
        ARALUMALLIGE POST
        DODDABALLPUR TALUK
        BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
                                             ... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. N.V. MANJUNATH, ADV.,)

AND:

1.      THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
        KSRTC CENTRAL DIVISION
                             2



     KH ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
     BENGALURU 560027.

2.   M. VENU
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
     R/AT 75/35
     SHANKARAPPA GARDEN
     BENGALURU 560023.

3.   IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     K S C M F BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR
     BLOCK NO. 8, (CUNNINGHAM ROAD)
     BENGALURU 560062.
                                           ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R3
    MR. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADV., FOR R1
    MR. K.N. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADV., FOR R2)

                           ---

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.03.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.5139/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BANGALORE (SCCH-14), DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

M.F.A. NO.1347 OF 2017 BETWEEN:

1. DEEPIKA @ KEMPAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.

2. HARSHITHA (MINOR) D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY REPTD. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER DEEPIKA.

3. GANGAIAH D/O LATE DODDAMARAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.

4. MUNIYAMMA W/O GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.

5. MUNIBAILAPPA S/O GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

6. SHIVAKUMAR S/O GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

7. YOGANANDA S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPTD BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER DEEPIKA.

ALL ARE R/AT NO.6, K G LAKKANAHALLI BENGALURU URBAN, BANGALORE 562123.

... APPELLANTS (BY MR. N.V. MANJUNATH, ADV.,)

AND:

1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC CENTRAL DIVISION K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU 560027.

2. M. VENU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT 75/35 SHANKARAPPA GARDEN BENGALURU 560023.

3. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., K S C M F BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR BLOCK NO. 8, (CUNNINGHAM ROAD) BENGALURU 560062.

... RESPONDENTS (BY MR. B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R3 MR. F.S. DABALI, ADV., FOR R1 MR. K.N. CHANDRAPPA, ADV., FOR R2)

---

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.03.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.5140/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, SCCH-14, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

M.F.A. NO.1348 OF 2017 BETWEEN:

1. SUBBAIAH @ SUBBARAYAPPA S/O HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

2. VENKATAMMA W/O SUBBAIAH @ SUBBARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.6 JAKKASANDRA (V), ARALUMALLIGE DODDABALLPUR TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

... APPELLANTS (BY MR. N.V. MANJUNATH, ADV.,)

AND:

1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC CENTRAL DIVISION K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU 560027.

2. M. VENU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT 75/35 SHANKARAPPA GARDEN BENGALURU 560023.

3. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., K S C M F BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR BLOCK NO. 8, (CUNNINGHAM ROAD) BENGALURU 560062.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY MR. B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R3 MR. F.S. DABALI, ADV., FOR R1 R2 SERVED)

---

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.03.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.5141/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BANGALORE (SCCH-

14), DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

THESE M.F.As. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

COMMON JUDGEMENT

M.F.A.No.1346/2017, M.F.A.No.1347/2017 and

M.F.A.No.1348/2017 have been filed by the claimants

seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, being

aggrieved, by the judgment dated 24.03.2015 passed by the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as

'the Tribunal' for short). Since, these appeals preferred under

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Act' for short) arise out of the same

accident as well as common judgment passed by the

Tribunal, they were heard together and are being decided by

this common judgment.

2. Facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly stated

are that on 15.07.2012 at about 5.30 p.m. deceased

Narayanaswamy was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration

No.KA-02-ER-7006 along with the other deceased Muniraju

and Subramani as pillion riders. When they reached near

Sugar Factory Guest House, Gowribidanur- Tondebavi Road,

a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation ( hereinafter

referred to as 'KSRTC') bus bearing registration No.KA-

02/ER/7006, which was being driven by its driver in a rash

and negligent manner and in a high speed, dashed against

the motor cycle, which was being driven by the deceased

Narayanaswamy. As a result of the aforesaid accident, all the

three deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to

the same.

3. The claimants in MFA 1346/2017 thereupon filed a

petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation

on the ground that the deceased Muniraju was aged about 22

years at the time of accident and was engaged in agriculture

and electrical work and was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/-

per month. While the claimants in M.F.A.No.1347/2017 filed

a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming

compensation on the ground that the deceased

Narayanswamy was aged about 24 years at the time of

accident and was engaged in agriculture and coolie work and

was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month whereas,

claimants in M.F.A.No.1348/2017 filed a petition under

Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground

that the deceased Subramani was aged about 22 years at the

time of accident and was an electrician by profession and was

earning a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month. It was further

pleaded in all the claim petitions that accident took place

solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by

its driver. The claimants in all the claim petitions claimed

compensation to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- along with

interest.

4. The KSRTC filed the written statement in which,

inter alia, the mode and manner of the accident was denied.

It was pleaded that the accident occurred due to the

negligence of rider of the motorcycle. It was also pleaded

that the deceased persons were proceeding on the

motorcycle in violation of Section 128 of the Act. It was

further pleaded that the rider of the motorcycle did not hold

a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident.

The ages, avocations and incomes of all the deceased were

also denied and it was pleaded that the claim of the

claimants is exorbitant and excessive.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded

the evidence. The claimants examined Bylanjinappa (PW-1),

Deepika (PW2), Subbaiah (PW3) and got exhibited

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. The respondents

examined Venkatarama Reddy (RW1), M. Velu (RW2), Girish

(RW3) and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R5.

The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia,

held that the claimants in all the claim petitions have failed

to prove that the accident took place on account of rash and

negligent driving of the KSRTC Bus by its driver. It was

further held, that the accident took place on account of

negligence of the rider of the motorcycle viz., deceased

Narayanaswamy. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the

claim petitions. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been

filed.

6. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the

Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petitions on the sole

ground that the KSRTC Bus driver against whom the

chargesheet for offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304A

of the Indian Penal Code was acquitted of the charges. It is

further submitted that the acquittal of the driver who was

accused in the criminal case has no bearing on the claim of

the claimants before the Tribunal. It is also submitted that

the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence on

record on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and

erroneously held that the accident occurred on account of

negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. It is further

submitted that the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for

decision afresh. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

insurance company submitted that judgment of the Tribunal

is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

7. We have considered the submissions made by

learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

The Supreme Court in 'MANGALA RAM VS. ORIENTAL

INSURANCE CO.', (2018) 5 SCC 656 has held that the

proceeding under the Act has to be decided on the basis of

preponderance of probabilities and claimant is not required to

prove the accident beyond reasonable doubt. The court

reiterated the principles laid down in DULCINA FERNANDES

v. JOAQUIM XAVIER CRUZ (2013) 10 SCC 646 and held

that the approach of the Tribunal should be holistic of the

entire pleading and evidence by applying the test of

preponderance of probabilities. It was held that it was

necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident

caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be

possible to be done by the claimants. The court restated that

the settled principle is that the evidence of the claimants

ought to be examined on the touchstone of preponderance of

probabilities and certainly the standard of proof beyond

reasonable doubt could not be have been applied. The

aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by the

Supreme Court in SUNITA AND ORS VS. RAJASTHAN

STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AIR 2019 SC

994. It is pertinent to mention here that the proceeding

before the Tribunal as well as the criminal trial are separate

and distinct proceedings. In a claim for compensation under

the Act, the issues have to be decided on the basis of

preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable

doubt and the mere acquittal of the driver of the offending

vehicle in a criminal case will have no bearing on the claim

for compensation, as the claim has to be decided on the

basis of the evidence adduced before the Tribunal. In any

case, the acquittal of the driver cannot be made the sole

basis for the rejection of the claim of the claimants. In the

instant case, the Tribunal has held that the claimants have

failed to prove that the accident occurred due to the

negligence of the driver of the KSRTC Bus by placing reliance

on the acquittal of driver of the KSRTC Bus against the

charges of Section 279, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal

Code. The aforesaid finding of the Tribunal cannot be

sustained in the eye of law. For the aforementioned reasons,

the judgment of the Tribunal is quashed and the matter is

remitted to the Tribunal for decision afresh in accordance

with law in the light of the observations made in this

judgment.

Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

ss