Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Controler vs Smt Lakshmamma on 16 January, 2021

Author: H T Prasad

                                1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

                MFA No.7093 OF 2017(MV)

BETWEEN:

The Divisional Controller,
K.S.R.T.C.,
Mysuru Rural Division,
Mysuru District,
Rep. by Chief Law officer,
KSRTC, Central Offices,
K.H.Road, Bangalore-560 027.
                                          ... Appellant

(By Sri.S.Rajashekhar, Advocate)

AND:

1.     Smt. Lakshmamma,
       W/o Late. Sidda Shetty,
       Aged about 39 years.

2.     Kum. Poornima,
       D/o Late. Sidda Shetty,
       Aged about 19 years.

3.     Kum. Mamatha,
       D/o Late. Sidda Shetty,
       Aged about 18 years.

4.     Kum. Megana,
       D/o Late Sidda Shetty,
                             2



     Aged about 13 years,
     Since minor represented by her
     Mother and natural guardian
     Smt. Lakshmamma,

     All are permanently residing at
     Rangasamudra Village,
     Kasaba Hobli,
     T Narasipura Taluk,
     Mysuru Taluk-570105.

                                           ... Respondents

(By Sri.Guruswamy, Advocate for
Sri. M.G.Ravisha, Advocate for R1 to R3)

       This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:01.04.2017 passed
in MVC No. 458/2016 on the file of Judge, Principal Court
of Small Causes, Mysuru, awarding compensation for
Rs.14,20,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till the date of realization.

      This MFA, coming on for hearing, this day, this
Court, delivered the following:

                    JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',

for short) has been filed by the K.S.R.T.C. (for short,

'the Corporation) being aggrieved by the judgment

dated 01.04.2017 passed by the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Mysuru in MVC No.458/2016.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 26.03.2016 at about 3.30

p.m. the deceased Siddashetty was proceeding on his

TVS Moped bearing registration No.KA-55/U-7483 on

Malavalli - Mysuru main road. When he reached near

Halagaiahna Hundi Village Gate, at that time, the

driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-

11/F-0058 came at a high speed and in a rash and

negligent manner, dashed against the vehicle of the

deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the

deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed

to the injuries at the spot.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section

166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was

working as mason and was earning Rs.600/- per day.

The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of

Rs.20,50,000/- along with interest.

4. On service of summons, the respondent

appeared through counsel and filed written statement

in which the averments made in the petition were

denied. It was pleaded that the accident occurred not

due to the negligent driving of the KSRTC bus but due

to negligence of the deceased. It was further pleaded

that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary

parties. It was further pleaded that the compensation

claimed is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal

of the petition.

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

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to

prove their case, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1

and got exhibited 8 documents namely Ex.P1 to

Ex.P8. On behalf of respondents, driver of the bus

was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited 3

documents namely Exs.R1 to R3. The Claims Tribunal,

by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the

accident took place on account of rash and negligent

driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a

result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and

succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held

that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of

Rs.14,20,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6%

p.a. and directed the Corporation to deposit the

compensation amount along with interest. Being

aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the Corporation has

raised the following contentions:

Firstly, the accident occurred due to the

negligent riding of the deceased himself. He was

riding the moped at a high speed and dashed to the

KSRTC bus. It is very clear from the sketch - Ex.P4

that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

riding of the deceased himself.

Secondly, it is very clear from the IMV report -

Ex.P6 that the front portion of the moped was fully

damaged and since he was driving the vehicle at a

high speed and dashed against the bus, the accident

has occurred. The Tribunal is not justified in holding

that the driver of the bus is negligent in causing the

accident.

Thirdly, the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal on all the heads is on the higher side contrary

to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v-

PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017

SC 5157 and MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO.

LTD. -V- NANU RAM reported in 2018 ACJ 2782.

Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for

the claimants has raised the following contentions:

Firstly, the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus, he

came extreme right side and dashed against the

moped and caused the accident.

Secondly, the police have registered FIR against

the driver of the bus and the charge sheet has been

filed against the driver of the bus and he has not

challenged the same before any court of law. It is

very clear from the spot sketch that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the bus. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly

answered issue No.1 in the affirmative.

Thirdly, the notional income assessed by the

Tribunal is on the lower side and the overall

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower

side. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Perused the judgment and award and original records.

9. The case of the claimants is that the

deceases was proceeding on his moped on Malavalli -

Mysuru road. When he reached Halagaiahna Hundi

village gate, the driver of the KSRTC bus came from

opposite direction at a high speed and in a rash and

negligent manner dashed against the moped. Due to

the impact, the deceased fell down and succumbed to

the injuries. Under the Motor Vehicles Act in the claim

petition before the Claims Tribunal the standard of

proof is much below than what is required in a

criminal case as well as in the civil case. No doubt,

before the Tribunal, there must be some material on

the basis of which the Tribunal can arrive or decide

things necessary to decide for awarding

compensation, but the Tribunal is not expected to take

or to adopt a nicety of a civil or criminal case. After

all it is a summary enquiry and it is the legislation for

the welfare of the Society. The proceedings under the

Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings

under civil rules. Hence, strict rules of evidence are

not required to be followed in this regard. In the case

of MANGLA RAM (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court

has held as hereinbelow:

"25. In Dulcina Fernandes, this Court examined similar situation where the evidence of claimant's eyewitness was discarded by the Tribunal and that the respondent in that case was acquitted in the criminal case concerning the accident. This Court, however, opined that it cannot be overlooked that upon investigation of the case registered against the respondent, prima facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial. The Court restated the settled principle that the evidence of the claimants ought to be

examined by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."

To prove the case of the claimants they have

examined first claimant as PW-1 and got marked 8

documents as Exs.P1 to P8. PW-1 has deposed that

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus. Immediately

after the accident police have registered FIR as per

Ex.P1 on the basis of the compliant given by the

claimant as per Ex.P2. After thorough investigation

police have filed charge sheet against the driver of the

bus. The police have prepared sketch as per Ex.P5.

It is very clear that the road was proceeding from

Mysuru to Malavalli towards east to west and the bus

was proceeding from Mysuru to Malavalli and the

moped was coming from Malavalli towards Mysuru and

from the accident spot there is 14 ft. space towards

north. Therefore it is very clear from the sketch that

the Car which was coming from Mysuru side was

coming at a high speed, overtook the bus which was

proceeding in front and the bus came to extreme right

side and dashed against the moped. As per the IMV

report, the bus was damaged as follows:

                  "1.     Front    wind     screen      glass
            smashed by public.
            2.    Front left side No.1 Head light
            smashed by public.
            3.    Front      right        side    indicator
            smashed by public.
            4.    Front right        side corner body
            dented inward & sheet broken.
            5.    Front    left    side    body    quarter
            glass & below that smashed by
            public.
            6.    Front    left    side    from    quarter
            glasses No. 1, 2 , 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9,
            10,    11,     12,     13,      14,   15,     16
            smashed by public.




            7.   Front left side Top show glass
            No.2,3,5,9 smashed by public.
            8.   Rear wind screen glass smashed
            by public.

9. Rear left side indicator smashed by public.

10. Front right side from window glass No.3 smashed by public.

The police have filed charge sheet against the

driver of the bus and he has not challenged the same

before any court of law. The respondent has

examined the driver of the bus as RW-1. Even he has

not disputed the charge sheet filed against him. By

considering the evidence of the parties and the

documents the Tribunal has rightly held that the

accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of

the driver of the bus.

10. In respect of quantum of compensation is