Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Smt Siddamma on 6 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44953
MFA No. 5116 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 6522 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5116 OF 2015(MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6522 OF 2015(MV-D)
IN MFA NO. 5116 OF 2015:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
BANGALORE METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
CENTRAL OFFICE,K.H. ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 027.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D. VIJAYA KUMAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SIDDAMMA,
Digitally signed
W/O YELLAPPA,
by VINUTHA B S
Location: HIGH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SRI. YELLAPPA,
S/O KADAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
3. RAMESH,
S/O YELLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT NO.39, KACHIGATTA,
SULADIMMANA HALLI,BANAVARA POST,
ARASIKERE TALUK,HASAN DISTRICT- 573 112.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D. S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44953
MFA No. 5116 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 6522 of 2015
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.11.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1028/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 19TH ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.7,42,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A
FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO.6522 OF 2015:
BETWEEN:
1. SIDDAMMA,
W/O YELLAPPA,
AGED 46 YEARS,
2. YELLAPPA
S/O KADAPPA,
AGED 56 YEARS,
3. RAMESH
S/O YELLAPPA,
AGED 28 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT # 39, KACHIGHATTA,
SULADIMMANAHA HALLI,
BANAVARA POST, ARASIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 112
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. D. S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
B.M.T.C., SHANTHINAGAR DOUBLE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 027
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. D. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.11.2014 PASSED IN
MVC NO.1028/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL SCJ
AND MACT, (SCCH-17), BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:44953
MFA No. 5116 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 6522 of 2015
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
COMMON JUDGMENT
Heard, Sri D. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation ('BMTC'
for brevity) and Sri D.S. Sridhar, learned counsel
appearing for the claimants.
2. Challenge in these appeals is the order that was
passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore,
in M.V.C No.1028/2014 dated 25.11.2014. Dispute in both
the appeals is the quantum of amount awarded as
compensation.
3. The first claimant in the capacity of the mother,
the second claimant in the capacity of the father and the
third claimant in the capacity of brother of the deceased
S.V. Pramila (herein after referred to as 'the deceased' for
brevity) filed an application claming compensation of
Rs.15,00,000/-.
4. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded
a sum of Rs.7,42,000/- as compensation and directed
NC: 2023:KHC:44953
BMTC to pay the said amount with interest at the rate of
6% per annum.
5. The submission made by the learned counsel for
BMTC attacking the order of the Tribunal is firstly that the
driver of the appellant was not negligent in driving the
alleged offending vehicle and that whole negligence lies on
the part of the deceased. Secondly that the amount
awarded as compensation is highly excessive. Arguing in
respect of the first point learned counsel for BMTC states
that the deceased is a woman having low vision and
without any precautions tried to cross the road. Learned
counsel states that the deceased being blind, could not
witness the vehicles coming and thereby dashed against
the bus and succumbed to the injuries and thus, the whole
negligence lies on part of the deceased.
6. Learned counsel submits that Ex.P8 sketch
discloses that there is no possibility of crossing the road at
the place of accident and thus considering the same, the
Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition.
NC: 2023:KHC:44953
7. Per contra, the submission made by learned
counsel for the claimants is that the deceased was not
crossing the road but she was standing at the footpath.
Learned counsel states that the bus driven by its driver
came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the
deceased, thus the accident occurred and even the records
of the police are in favour of the claimants.
8. A perusal on record goes to show that the learned
Judge of the Tribunal who dealt with the matter,
subjecting the evidence of PW1, RW1, Exs.P1 to P13 to
scrutiny, came to a conclusion that the driver of the bus
was at fault. It is not in dispute that Ex.P2 complaint was
given against the driver of the bus only i.e. RW1. Also it is
not in dispute that Ex.P10 charge sheet was laid against
RW1. Though RW1 gave evidence to the effect that he
was not at fault, no reason is shown as to why RW1 or any
of the BMTC employees gave complaint with regard to
happening of the accident. Also basing on the statement of
the witnesses and Exs.P8 rough sketch, the Officer who
investigated the case came to a conclusion that the driver
NC: 2023:KHC:44953
of the bus was at fault and therefore laid charge sheet
against the said driver. The whole version of the claimants
is that on the date of accident i.e. on 26.01.2014 while the
deceased was standing on the footpath on Hosur main
road, the bus bearing Registration No.KA.01 FA.2121
which was driven by its driver came in a rash and
negligent manner dashed against the deceased. Due to
which, she fell down and died while being shifted to
hospital. The Investigating Officer who investigated the
case also came to a conclusion that the driver of the bus
was at fault.
9. Having considered these facts, the Tribunal has
come to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending
vehicle i.e. bus. This Court find no reasons whatsoever to
interfere with the said finding.
10. Coming to the aspect of quantum that is awarded
as compensation, a perusal of the impugned order reveals
that the learned Judge has taken into consideration the
nominal income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month,
NC: 2023:KHC:44953
added future prospects and arrived at a just conclusion.
This Court does not find any grounds to interfere with
either the calculation made or the ultimate quantum that
is awarded as compensation. Therefore, the ultimate
conclusion of this Court is that both the appeals lacks
merits and deserves dismissal.
11. Hence, the appeals stand dismissed confirming
the order that is rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Bengaluru, in MVC No.1028/2014 dated
25.11.2014.
The amount if any deposited by the BMTC and is still
in the credit of the High Court, be transmitted to the
concerned Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PTM/AP
CT:TSM
