Divisional Controller vs H V Geetha
2021 Latest Caselaw 2033 Kant

                               1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2021

                           PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                              AND

 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

             M.F.A. NO.788 OF 2019 (MV-D)


BETWEEN:

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC
CHIKKAMAGALORE DIVISION
CHIKKAMAGALORE 577 101.
(OWNER OF KSRTC BUS BEARING
KA-18-F-0705)
REP BY IT'S CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
                                            ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. DABALI FAKKIRAPPA SHIDRAMAPPA, ADV.,)


AND:

1.     H V GEETHA
       W/O M. MANJUNATHA
       AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

2.     M. MANJUNATHA
       S/O MALLEGOWDA
       AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.

3.     MADHUSHREE M
       D/O M. MANJUNATHA
                                2



      AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.

      ALL ARE R/AT HALEYURU
      CHAPPARADAHALLI POST
      HARANAHALLI HOBLI
      PIRIYAPATTANA TALUK
      MYSURU DISTRICT 571107.

4.    DORESWAMY
      S/O EREGOWDA
      AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
      DRIVER NO.2389, DRIVER OF KSRTC
      BUS NO. KA-18-F-0705
      SAKALESHAPURA DEPOT
      HASSAN DISTRICT 573 134.
                                             ... RESPONDENTS
(R1, R2 & R3 SERVED
V/O DTD:6.2.2020 NOTICE TO R4 IS D/W)
                           ---

      THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.11.2018 PASSED
IN MVC NO.1188/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
SENIOR    CIVIL   JUDGE    &   MACT,    HASSAN,     AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.22,83,200/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.


      THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., 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 Corporation against the judgment dated

17.11.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims Tribunal' for short).

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are

that on 15.03.2016 at about 1.45 p.m. deceased Jeevan was

riding on the motor cycle on Hassan-Sakleshpur road near

Kandali Village. At that time, a KSRTC bus bearing

registration No.KA 18 F 0705 which was being driven in a

rash and negligent manner by its driver dashed the motor

cycle on which deceased was traveling. As a result of which,

deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the

same.

3. The claimants thereupon filed a petition under

Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground

that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent

driving of the driver of KSRTC bus. It was further pleaded

that the deceased was aged about 19 years and was a

student of II year Engineering course in N.D.R.K. Engineering

college at Hassan. Accordingly, the claimants claimed

compensation along with interest. The Corporation filed

written statement in which the averments made in the

petition were denied. It was pleaded that the accident took

place on account of rash and negligent driving of the

deceased himself and the compensation claimed by the

claimants is excessive and exorbitant.

4. 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 H.V.Geetha as PW-1 and got

exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. The

respondents examined one Doreswamy as RW-1, and got

marked documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. The Claims Tribunal, by

the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident

took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the bus. It was further held, that the claimants are

entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.22,83,200/- along

with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition

till the date of realisation. In the aforesaid factual

background, this appeal has been filed by the Corporation in

which findings of the Claims Tribunal with regard to

negligence as well as quantum of compensation has been

challenged.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

from perusal of spot mahazar Ex.P4, it is evident that the

accident took place on the southern side of the road whereas

the vehicles were found on the northern side of the road. It

is also argued that the deceased was plying the motor bike in

violation of Section 129 of the Act inasmuch as deceased was

not wearing a head gear. It is also urged that monthly

income of the deceased who was a student of Engineering

course has been assessed at Rs.15,000/- which is on the

higher side. It is further submitted that since the deceased

had no income therefore, the question of addition of 40% on

account of future prospects does not arise. It is also pointed

out that interest has been awarded at the rate of 8% which is

on the higher side.

6. We have considered the submission made by learned

counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. It is

well settled in law that in motor accident claim cases, the

claimant is required to prove the factum of an accident on

the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not beyond

reasonable doubt. (See: 'MANGALA RAM VS. ORIENTAL

INSURANCE CO.', (2018) 5 SCC 656). It is pertinent to

mention here that the Corporation has not taken the plea of

contributory negligence. The Claims Tribunal has not framed

any issue in this regard. It is also pertinent to mention here

that the first information report has been lodged against the

driver of the bus and from perusal of Ex.P3 i.e. motor vehicle

accident report, it is evident that motor cycle has sustained

damage on the front right side of the bumper and head light

has also been damaged. The police, after investigation has

filed charge sheet against the driver of the bus. Therefore, it

appears that the bus has hit the motor bike on which the

deceased was traveling on the front right side of the bike.

For the aforementioned reasons, the conclusion arrived at by

the Claims Tribunal that the accident has taken place on

account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

bus, is affirmed. Further, the compensation awarded by the

Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any

interference in this appeal.

However, the Claims Tribunal has awarded interest at

the rate of 8% p.a. which is on the higher side and the same

is reduced to 6% p.a.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV