Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Sri Rangaiah on 30 June, 2022
Bench: Anant Ramanath Hegde
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
MFA NO.629 OF 2010(MV)
C/W
MFA NO.630 OF 2010(MV)
IN MFA NO. 629/2010
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION LTD
CENTRAL OFFICES,SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560001
REPTD. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
DIVISIONAL MANAGER(CONTROLLER)
KSRTC LTD.,HASSAN DIVISIONAL,
HASSAN. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI KESHAVAMURTHY
S/O.CHENKESHAVA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
2. SMT. NANJAMMA
W/O.KESHAVAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT.CHIKKONAHALLI VILLAGE,
NUGGEHALLI HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK
AT PRESENT R/AT.JAJUR GOLLARAHATTI
KASABA HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK
3. SRI. DHARMAIH
S/O.RANGAIAH,AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
-2-
HOUSE NO.71, CHIKKONAHALLI VILLAGE
NUGGEHALLI HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK
4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
JAYADEVA HOSTEL BUILDING
B H ROAD, TIPTUR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. M. ARUN PONNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
V/O DATED 7.6.2018, NOTICE TO R3 IS H/S)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.10.2009 PASSED
IN MVC NO.90/2008 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN.) AND
ADDITIONAL C.J.M., MACT, ARASIKERE, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.3,99,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.
IN MFA NO.630/2010
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION LTD
CENTRAL OFFICES,SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560001
REPTD. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
DIVISIONAL MANAGER(CONTROLLER)
KSRTC LTD.,HASSAN DIVISIONAL,HASSAN. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI RANGAIAH
S/O CHANNAKESHAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
2. SMT SAKAMMA
W/O RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
3. LALITHAMMA
W/O LATE CHANNAIAH
-3-
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
4. MASTER ABHISHEKH
S/O LATE CHANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
MINOR BY GUARDIAN LALITHAMMA
5. KUMAR
S/O RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
6. KUM. SUMALATH
D/O RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT CHIKKONAHALLI VILLAGE
NUGGEHALLI HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
AND ALSO R/AT JAJUR GOLLARAHATTI
KASABA HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK.
7. SRI DHARMAIH
S/O RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
HOUSE NO.71,
CHIKKONAHALLI VILLAGE,
NUGGEHALLI HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK.
8. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LD.,
JAYADEVA HOSTEL BUILDING,
B H ROAD, TIPTUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M. ARUN PONNAPA, ADVOCATE FOR R8;
R4-MINOR REP BY R3, R1 TO R7 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.10.2009 PASSED
IN MVC NO.91/2008 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) &
ADDITIONAL CJM, ARSIKERE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
RS.3,95,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. TILL DEPOSIT.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
-4-
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
KSRTC, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants-
respondents Nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing
for insurance company-respondent No.4 in MFA No.629/2010.
Notice to respondent No.3 is dispensed with.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.8 in MFA No.630/2010.
3. These appeals are arising from a common
judgment and award dated 07.10.2009 passed in MVC
Nos.90/2008 and 91/2008 on the file of Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Arasikere. MVC No.90/2008 is filed
by the parents of the deceased Manjunath who died in the
alleged accident, which occurred on 21.04.2006 and MVC
No.91/2008 is filed by the dependents of deceased
Channaiah, who also died in the aforesaid accident. Claim
petitions filed by the dependants of both the deceased
seeking compensation from the KSRTC and Oriental Insurance
Company, which were allowed in part and compensation of
Rs.3,99,000/- and Rs.3,95,000/- is awarded respectively.
Tribunal has fixed 50% liability on the KSRTC and 50% on the
insurance company of the bike involved in the accident.
4. The parents of the deceased have not filed any
appeal before this Court seeking enhancement of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
5. The KSRTC has questioned the impugned judgment
and award on the ground that the driver of the KSRTC bus
was not at all responsible for the accident. It is urged that
after investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the
deceased rider of the motorbike by the police and there was
no fault of the driver of the bus. The liability could not have
been fastened on the KSRTC is the contention.
6. It is urged that the records reveal that the rider of
the motorbike was drunk at the time of the accident and he
was attempting to overtake the lorry without taking necessary
precautions and accordingly, he came in a high speed even
without caring the hand signal given by the driver of the lorry
and dashed against the KSRTC bus, which was coming from
the opposite direction. Referring to these documents, it is
urged that the Tribunal committed a grave error in fastening
50% liability on KSRTC.
7. The learned advocate appearing for the insurance
company would contend that Tribunal is justified in
apportioning the liability to the extent of 50% on the KSRTC.
8. The learned advocate appearing for the claimants-
respondents in MFA No.629/2010 would submit that the
Tribunal is justified in apportioning the liability on KSRTC and
there is no defence taken by the KSRTC that the rider of the
motorbike was drunk at the time of the accident and he would
pray for dismissal of the appeal filed by the KSRTC.
9. This Court has considered the rival contentions
raised by the learned counsel appearing for respective parties
and also perused the records.
10. Exs.P-5 and Ex.P-7 are the post-mortem reports
and Ex.P-3 is the charge sheet. Post-mortem report would
reveal that the rider of the bike was drunk at the time of the
accident and police have filed a charge sheet against him.
The claimant has not produced any proof to establish that the
driver of the KSRTC bus was responsible for the accident. The
driver of the KSRTC is examined as RW2. On appreciation of
the documentary as well as oral evidence placed on record,
this Court is of the view that the finding of the Tribunal that
KSRTC was also responsible for the accident, is unsustainable.
Tribunal while fastening the liability on KSRTC proceeded to
hold that complaint is lodged against the driver of the KSRTC
and the charge sheet filed against the rider who is not named
in the charge sheet and the same is impermissible under law.
Law does not bar the filing of a charge sheet against a person
not named in the complaint. Merely because a person is
named in the complaint as an accused there is no mandate
that the charge sheet is to be filed against him. A charge
sheet has to be filed only on the person against whom there is
evidence relating to the commission of the offence. Police
have not found any material against the driver of the KSRTC
bus.
11. Under the circumstances, on appreciation of
materials placed on record this Court is of the view that the
charge sheet filed against the rider of the bike appears to be
correct and the finding that driver of the KSRTC bus, is also
responsible for the alleged accident is based on no evidence
and same is set aside.
12. Since there is no appeal relating to the
compensation this Court is of the view that there is no need
for interference with the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
13. The liability fastened on the appellant-KSRTC is
set aside and the insurance company-respondent No.2 is
directed to deposit the entire compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
Amount in deposit made by the appellant shall be
released in favour of appellant-KSRTC forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DR
