The Managing Director Of Ksrtc vs Shivashankar S/O Sharanappa ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2291 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2291 Kant
Judgement Date : 14 February, 2022

Karnataka High Court

The Managing Director Of Ksrtc vs Shivashankar S/O Sharanappa ... on 14 February, 2022

Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar, V Srishananda

                           1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                 KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                       PRESENT

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

                         AND

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SHRISHANANDA

               M.F.A. NO.201026/2021 (MV)


BETWEEN

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF KSRTC
REPRESENTED BY
DISTRICT CONTROLLER,
KSRTC DIVISION OFFICE, VIJAYAPURA,
NOW THROUGH ITS CHIEF
LAW OFFICER NEKRTC,
CENTRAL OFFICE, SARIGE SADAHANA,
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI.
                                            ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    SHIVASHANKAR S/O SHARANAPPA KANNUR
      AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,

2.    ANNAPURNA W/O SHIVASHANKAR KANNUR
      AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                                   2




3.     PRIYANKA W/O HARISH KANNUR
       AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,

       ALL ARE R/O. WARD NO. 11, INDI ROAD,
       RAJAPUT GALLI, VIJAYAPURA-586101.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI KOUJALAGI C. L., ADVOCATE)

    THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND CALL FOR
THE LOWER COURT RECORDS AND HEAR THE PARTIES
AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.03.2021 AND
AWARD DATED 17.03.2021 IN MVC NO.1126/2018, BEFORE
THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XV,
VIJAYAPURA IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, V.
SRISHANANDA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                            JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the KSRTC challenging the judgment

and award passed in MVC No.1126/2018 dated 17.03.2021 on

the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.XV, Vijayapur

(for short 'Tribunal').

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

A claim petition came to be filed contending that on

06.10.2018 at about 2.30 a.m., when Harish was riding a

motorcycle bearing No.KA-24/K-2006 in a proper manner and

when he reached near Bombalagasi on Indi bypass road to

Vijayapur, a KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-28/F-2096, came from

opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed

against the motorcycle, whereby, the rider motorcycle fell down

and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The claimants

namely, parents and sister laid a claim for awarding suitable

compensation in respect of the accident. The Tribunal after

issue of notice, considered the written statement and framed the

following issues:

1. Whether the petitioners prove that Harish Shivashankar Kannur died due to the injuries suffered in the road accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of KSRTC bus bearing reg.No.KA-28/F-2093, which occurred on 06.10.2018 at about 2.30 p.m., on Vijayapur Indi Road near Bombalagasi Vijayapur?

2. Whether petitioners prove that they are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom they are entitled?

3. What order or award?

3. In order to prove the issues, claimant No.3 got

examined herself as PW.1 and relied on 8 documents, which

were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P8. Among them,

Ex.P1 is the FIR, which culminated in filing of Ex.P8 - charge

sheet. On behalf the respondent, the driver of the bus got

examined himself as RW.1.

4. On considering the oral and documentary evidence

on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded a

sum of Rs.15,79,000/- with interest at 6% per annum form the

date of petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by the same,

the present appeal is preferred by the appellant - Corporation.

5. In the appeal memorandum, following grounds have

been raised:

x It is submitted that the income of the deceased had been taken which is higher side hence same needs to be modified. hence same needs to be set aside.

x It is submitted that the deceased was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dash to the KSRTC bus in a

opposite direction and caused the road traffic accident this aspect was not considered by the Court below and also the rider of the motorcycle is also equally contributed to the road traffic accident hence same needs to be modified.

x It is submitted that the on the conventional heads higher side of compensation had been awarded hence same needs to be modified.

x It is submitted that driving licence and other documents have not been produced before the investigation officer or before the tribunal hence same needs to be modified.

6. Reiterating the above grounds, the learned counsel

for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has failed to

consider the contributory negligence especially when the sketch

map clearly shows that there was a sufficient contribution by the

rider of the motorcycle as well, which resulted in the accident

and therefore, the appeal needs to be allowed.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

respondents/claimants supports the impugned judgment and

award of the Tribunal.

8. This Court perused the material on record in the

light of the rival contentions of the parties.

9. In the case on hand, the accidental death of Harish