Pooja M vs Sri Guruprasad B K
2022 Latest Caselaw 10308 Kant

                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2022

                          BEFORE

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

                MFA No.3685 OF 2019(MV)

BETWEEN:

Pooja M.,
D/o Manjappa,
Aged about 19 years,
Student,
R/o Hanjalagudu,
Iduvani Village, Barangi Hobli,
Sagar Taluk-577421,
Shivamogga District.                         ... Appellant

(By Sri.Onkar K.B., Advocate)

AND:

1.     Sri. Guruprasad B.K.,
       S/o Krishna Naik B.,
       Aged about 36 years,
       Now unemployed Driver,
       R/o Near Sagar Nursing Home,
       Vinoba Nagara, Sagar,
       Shivamogga District-577401.

2.     The Divisional Manager,
       K.S.R.T.C.,
       Davanagere Division,
       Davanagere-577002.               ... Respondents

(By Sri.K.Nagaraj Advocate for R2:
Notice to R1 is served but unrepresented)
                             2




       This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:16.11.2018 passed
in MVC No.1088/2015 on the file of the Principal Senior
Civil Judge Civil Judge, MACT, Sagar, Dismissing the claim
petition for compensation.

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

                    JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Act') has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved

by the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2018 passed

by the MACT, Sagara in MVC No.1088/2015.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 12.12.2014 at about 4.45

p.m., the claimant was standing near Iduvani bus

stand to cross the road. At that time, KSRTC bus

bearing registration No.KA-17/F-1713 being driven by

its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent

manner, dashed to the claimant. As a result of the

aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous

injuries and was hospitalized.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section

166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded

that she spent huge amount towards medical

expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded

that the accident occurred purely on account of the

rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by

its driver.

and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written

statements in which the averments made in the

petition were denied. The age, avocation and income

of the claimant and the medical expenses are denied.

It was pleaded by respondent No.2 that the petition

itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was

further pleaded that the accident was due to the

negligence of the claimant herself. It was further

pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by

the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, they 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 father of the claimant was

examined as PW-1 and the claimant was examined as

PW-2 and Dr.Nishanth was examined as CW-1 and

Dr.Vinod was examined as CW-2 and got exhibited

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 and C1 to C4. On

behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined

as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1

to Ex.R2. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned

judgment, inter alia, held that the claimant has not

proved that the accident took place on account of rash

and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its

driver and hence dismissed the claim petition. Being

aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

6. Sri Onkar, learned counsel appearing for the

claimant has raised the following contentions:

Firstly, when the claimant was trying to cross the

road, the driver of the bus came and dashed against

the claimant. Due to the impact, she fell down and

sustained injuries. Immediately thereafter a

complaint has been lodged against the driver of the

bus and the police have also filed charge sheet against

the driver of the bus. The Tribunal has not considered

the documents produced by the claimant and has not

properly appreciated the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2

and erred in dismissing the claim petition.

Secondly, the claimant was examined as PW-2

and her father as PW-1. They have categorically

stated that the accident has occurred due to the rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. In

support of their case they have also produced 18

documents. The Tribunal has not considered and

appreciated the materials available on record. Hence,

he sought for allowing the appeal.

7. On the other hand, Sri K.Nagaraj, learned

counsel appearing for the Corporation has raised the

following counter-contentions:

Firstly, the accident occurred in the busy road

where the claimant, without observing the vehicles

suddenly entered the main road. Due to that, the

driver was unable to control and the accident has

occurred.

Secondly, there is ample space for crossing the

road behind the bus. But the claimant tried to cross

the road in front of the bus, therefore, the accident

has occurred. This aspect has been admitted by PW-1

in his evidence stating that if she has not made any

attempt to cross the road in front of the bus, she

could have avoided the accident. Considering the

same, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim

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

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the judgment and award.

9. The case of the claimant is that on on

12.12.2014 at about 4.45 p.m., the claimant was

standing near Iduvani bus stand to cross the road. At

that time, KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-

17/F-1713 being driven by its driver at a high speed

and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the

claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the

claimant sustained grievous injuries and was

hospitalized. After recovering from the injuries she

filed the claim petition through her father. After she

became major, she has also given evidence as PW-2

and her father Manjunath has been examined as PW-

1. In their evidence, they have categorically stated

that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the bus. They have

lodged a complaint. On the basis of the complaint the

police have registered FIR against the driver of the

bus as per Ex.P2. After thorough investigation police

have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the

bus.

10. 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 vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED reported in (2018) 5 SCC 656,

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."

11. In view of the above, the matter requires to

be remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh

consideration in accordance with law.

12. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Judgment

and award passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The

matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh

consideration, in accordance with law. without being

influenced by the observations made in this order.

All the contentions of the parties are left open.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Cm/-