Karnataka High Court
The Depot Manager vs Dr. M B Shrinivasa on 11 March, 2022
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.573 of 2020 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE DEPOT MANAGER
KSRTC
MANGALORE DEPOT
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER
KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES
SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027 ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI G.LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DR.M.B.SHRINIVASA
S/O.SRI M.BALAKRISHNA NAYAK
AGAED ABOUT 43 YEARS
MEDICAL PRACTITIONER
R/AT GOVERNMENT AYURVEDIC
HOSPITAL, VIRAJPET TOWN
KODAGU DISTRICT
2. SRI CHANDRA NAIK
S/O.SRI KARIA NAIK
MAJOR
DRIVER, KSRTC BUS
NO.KA 19F 3031
GOHALLI HOUSE, ASWAL POST
GOHALLI VILLAGE
HUNSUR TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.N.PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
---
-2-
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.08.2019
PASSED IN MVC NO.207/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIRAJPET AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.71,523/- WITH INTEREST AT 6%
P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by KSRTC aggrieved by the
judgment and award passed by the Senior Civil Judge and
MACT, Virajpet ('the tribunal' for short) in
MVC.No.207/2015 dated 05.08.2019. This appeal is
premised on the ground of no liability of the insurer.
2. Though this matter is listed for admission, with
consent of learned counsel on both sides, matter is taken
up for final disposal.
3. Parties to this appeal shall be referred to as per
their status before the tribunal.
4. Brief facts of the case is as under:
On 27.07.2013, when the claimant boarded KSRTC
bus bearing registration No.KA.19.F.3031 to go to his
native village, Bolugallu House at Mandekolu Village, Sullia
Taluk, the KSRTC bus being driven by its driver with high
speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against
the tanker, which was coming from the opposite side, due
to the said accident, the claimant suffered fracture to right
Patella and immediately, the claimant was given first aid
treatment at Government Hospital, Sullia. Thereafter, he
was treated at KVG Hospital, Sullia, where POP was put
and the same was removed after one month. Due to the
injuries sustained by the claimant, he suffered permanent
partial disability and he was advised to take rest. It is
stated by the claimant that he is a Doctor working at
Government Ayurvedic Hospital at Virajpet. Due to the rash
and negligent driving of KSRTC bus driver, the accident
occurred, due to which, the claimant suffered injuries and
fractures and he expended money for his treatment. It is
further stated that there is a partial disability to the
claimant and he is unable to walk freely long distance due
to acute pain. Due to this permanent partial disability, the
claimant has lost his earning capacity. Therefore, he has
filed the claim petition before the tribunal seeking
compensation.
5. On notice being issued, the respondents filed their
objection statement. It is contended that the accident has
not occurred due to the negligent act of KSRTC driver
whereas it was caused by the driver of tanker who was
driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
Therefore, there is no liability on KSRTC to pay the
compensation. On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal
framed the relevant issues for consideration.
6. In order to substantiate the issues and establish
his case, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and got
marked documents as per Exs.P1 to P15. On the other
hand, the respondents have not entered into the witness
box nor produced any documents in support of their case.
7. Being aggrieved by the liability attributed against
the KSRTC by the tribunal, KSRTC has filed the present
appeal.
8. It is the contention of Sri G.Lakshmeesh Rao,
learned counsel for appellant-KSRTC that the impugned
judgment and award passed by the tribunal is erroneous.
The tribunal has not considered the material documents
both oral and documentary and erred in arriving at a
conclusion that the driver of the KSRTC was responsible for
rash and negligent driving. He further contends that the
tribunal has grossly erred in fastening the liability on the
KSRTC, whereas, it is the driver of tanker who had lost
control of his vehicle in the curvature and came to the other
side of the road and collided with the bus which was moving
on the extreme southern side of the road. It is his
contention that the claim petition ought to have been
dismissed holding that there is no liability as against the
driver of KSRTC. He further contends that the tribunal has
committed as error in computing the loss of income during
laid up period and also in granting compensation under the
other heads. On these grounds, learned counsel for KSRTC
prays that the appeal may be allowed and the judgment
and award of the tribunal may be set aside and be
exonerated.
9. Per contra, it is contended by Sri S.N.Prashanth
Chandra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the
judgment and award passed by the tribunal is in
accordance with the material evidence both oral and
documentary and same does not call for any interference
by this Court as the negligence and liability are correctly
attributed as against the driver of KSRTC bus, which has
been insured. It is further contended that the tribunal has
appreciated the material records produced at Exs.P1 to P15
and arrived at just and reasonable compensation relying on
Police records at Exs.P1 to P7, which have not been
challenged or questioned by appellant-KSRTC.
10. Having heard learned counsel for appellant-
KSRTC and respondent No.1-claimant, the point for
consideration before this Court is that-
"Whether the judgment and award
passed by the tribunal calls for any
interference by this Court and if so, what
order?"
11. On careful perusal of entire material records and
original records, it is not in dispute that on 27.07.2013,
claimant who was travelling in KSRTC bus bearing
registration No.KA.19.F.3031 met with an accident having
collided with tanker which was coming from the opposite
direction. It is also not in dispute that due to accident, the
claimant who was an inmate passenger of the bus suffered
injuries and taken treatment at Government Hospital and
thereafter, at KVG Hospital, Sullia. The tribunal after
analyzing and assessing the entire material both oral and
documentary including exhibits, Police records and other
medical records produced by the claimant at Exs.P1 to P15
came to the conclusion that the driver of KSRTC was rash
and negligent in driving the bus and attributed the liability
against KSRTC which was liable to pay compensation to the
claimant. This appeal is premised on the ground that there
is no liability as against KSRTC and that the entire liability
ought to have been fastened on the driver of tanker and the
claim petition ought to have been dismissed as against
KSRTC.
12. During the course of arguments, learned counsel
for appellant-KSRTC fairly submits that in another case
arising out of the same accident, the claimant therein who
was driver proceeding on tanker lorry, had filed a claim
petition seeking compensation for the accident having
occurred on 26.07.2013 between tanker lorry and KSRTC
bus in MVC.No.168/2014, wherein compensation came to
be awarded in favour of claimant therein which came to be
challenged by the KSRTC before the Hon'ble Division Bench
of this Court in MFA.No.2533/2016 (MV). The very same
contention was taken up in the said appeal before the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court wherein learned
counsel had vehemently argued with regard to there being
no liability as against KSRTC and that entire liability ought
to have been shifted against the lorry tanker which caused
the accident and there was absolutely no liability as against
the driver of KSRTC bus. This aspect was dealt in detail by
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court while deciding the
matter and at para-10 of the said judgment, a detail
analysis has been drawn by the Division Bench of this Court
considering the submissions made by learned counsel for
appellant-KSRTC and held that the negligence and liability
was attributed against the driver of KSRTC bus and issue
No.1 was held in affirmative holding that the driver of
KSRTC bus was rash and negligent in driving the bus which
caused accident leading to the injuries sustained by the
claimant. This legal aspect of the matter with regard to
liability which was questioned by the KSRTC has arrived
finality in the said judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court.
13. Admittedly, the same is not challenged before the
Hon'ble Apex Court and has attained finality. In view of the
same, it would be a futile exercise for this Court to go into
the aspects in detail i.e. whether any liability as against the
driver of KSRTC bus and whether the KSRTC is liable to
make good compensation awarded by the tribunal.
14. In view of the fact that Division Bench of this
Court has already held negligence as against driver of
KSRTC bus and fastened the liability on the KSRTC and
placing the fair submissions made by the learned counsel
for appellant-KSRTC and also placing the said judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court produced by him, I deem it
appropriate to pass the following order:
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed;
ii) The judgment and award passed by the Senior
Civil Judge and MACT, Virajpet in
MVC.No.207/2015 dated 05.08.2019 is upheld and
confirmed;
iii) Learned counsel for appellant-KSRTC submits that
he has already deposited 50% of the award
amount and the balance amount shall be deposited
by the appellant-KSRTC before the tribunal within
a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LB
