Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Ravikumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 13066 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

               M.F.A.NO.2592/2015 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION,
K.H. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560027,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
                                           ...APPELLANT

             (BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     RAVIKUMAR
       S/O MALLAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
       R/O KENCHAGONDANAHALLI,
       BHADRAVATHI.

2.     R. RAGHAVENDRA
       S/O B.S.RAVICHANDRACHAR,
       AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
       R/O 8TH MAIN ROAD,
       2ND CROSS, SHANTHINAGAR,
                                  2



       SHIVAMOGGA-577 201,
       (KSRTC BUS DRIVER)
                                              ... RESPONDENTS

      (NOTICE SERVED ON R-1 AND UNREPRESENTED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 17.01.2017 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-2 IS
                   DISPENSED WITH)

     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.01.2015
PASSED IN MVC NO.713/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR   CIVIL    JUDGE,   JMFC,  ADDITIONAL   MACT-12,
BHADRAVATHI, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.12,000/-
WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
ITS COMPLETE PAYMENT.

    THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant -

KSRTC. Though the respondents were served with notice, they

did not choose to engage the counsel or to appear personally.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

award dated 19.01.2015, passed in M.V.C.No.713/2012 on the

file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Addl. MACT -12

at Bhadravathi ('the Tribunal' for short).

3. The Tribunal after considering the oral and

documentary evidence on record has awarded compensation of

Rs.12,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the

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

the present appeal is filed by the appellant - KSRTC.

4. In this appeal the main contention of the appellant -

KSRTC that the driver of the bus lodged a complaint against the

driver of the tempo and the same was not accepted by the

Tribunal. The case has been registered against the driver of the

bus and the Tribunal failed to consider the complaint given by

the driver of the bus and ought to have taken the contributory

negligence.

5. Though the learned counsel for the appellant -

KSRTC contends that the Tribunal ought to have taken the

contributory negligence, but did not lead any evidence with

regard to the same. Merely giving complaint against the driver

of the tempo, is not a ground to come to a conclusion that there

was a contributory negligence. The same would have to be

substantiated by the appellant - KSRTC by leading cogent

evidence. In the absence of any cogent evidence, the question

of taking the contributory negligence does not arise.

6. In view of the above discussion made above, the

appeal is dismissed.

The amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be transmitted

to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

Registry is directed to transmit the records to the

concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PMR