Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs V Pasupathi on 24 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45705
MFA No. 6895 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6895 OF 2017 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
B.M.T.C, K.H. ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560027,
REPRESENTED BY IT'S
CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.F.S.DABALI.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.V.PASUPATHI,
S/O LATE SRI.K.R VENUGOPAL,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
Digitally
signed by 2. SRI.NANDHAGOPAL P.,
JAI JYOTHI J S/O SRI. V.PASUPATHI,
Location: BOTH ARE R/AT NO.3/19,
HIGH OTHAVADAI STREET,
COURT OF MUDALIARPET,
KARNATAKA
S.O. MUDALIARPET,
PONDICHERRY-605 004.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.M.CHANDRASHEKHAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R2)
ABSENT.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45705
MFA No. 6895 of 2017
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED11.07.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.5504/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 7TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE
& 32ND ACMM, COURT OF THE 7TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE &
32ND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.12,04,000/- WITH
INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the BMTC aggrieved by the
award passed in M.V.C. No. 5504/2015, on the file of the
VII Additional Judge and XXXII ACMM Court of Small
Causes, Bengaluru, (SCCH-3), dated 11.07.2017 whereby
the Tribunal has granted compensation of an amount of
Rs.12,04,000/-.
2. The claim petition was seeking compensation of an
amount of Rs.16,50,000/-. It is the case of the claimants
that on 16.07.2015 at around 8.00 p.m., the deceased
was proceeding as pedestrian at Majestic Bus Stand in
order to go to Kalasipalya Market. At that time, all of a
sudden the driver of the BMTC bus drove the vehicle in a
NC: 2023:KHC:45705
high speed and negligent manner without observing the
movements of other vehicles and without following the
traffic rules, came and dashed against the deceased due to
the terrific impact, he fell down on the right side wheel of
the bus, and the bus ran over his left hand due to which
he suffered fatal head injuries and bodily injuries. He was
shifted to Victoria hospital and he succumbed to the
injuries on 17.07.2015 at 5.40 p.m. It is the case of the
BMTC that the accident had taken place due to sole
negligence on the part of the deceased himself, who
suddenly crossed the road and the accident occurred. The
Tribunal had observed that they have not adduced any
evidence to substantiate their case and no contra material
has been brought on record to disbelieve the petition
contents or to discard the evidence relied upon by the
claimants. Based on the complaint, the FIR was registered
and charge sheet was filed and further as per the sketch,
the accident had taken place within the bus stand. Hence,
the Court considering the oral and documentary evidence
Court had granted compensation and held that the
NC: 2023:KHC:45705
accident had taken place, because of the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the BMTC bus.
3. The Learned counsel appearing for the BMTC
submits that when there is no negligence on the part of
the deceased, that aspect was not considered and Court
has not given any finding on the aspect of contributory
negligence. Further he submits that the award passed by
the Tribunal is without considering the evidence on record.
As per the office note though it says that the amount is
not deposited. Learned counsel submits that they admit
that the statutory deposit is made on 21.09.2020.
4. There is no representation on behalf of the
claimants.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the BMTC,
perused the entire material on record.
6. In this case, the accident took place at the bus
stand. This Court is not able to appreciate the contention
of the learned counsel for the BMTC that the claimant was
NC: 2023:KHC:45705
negligent. When it is a bus stand, the driver of the vehicle
has to be more cautious and when they say that there is a
contributory negligence, the burden lies on them to
adduce the evidence. In this case, such evidence is
adduced and the Court rightly held that the accident had
occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the BMTC. This Court is not inclined to interfere
with the said finding.
7. Accordingly, the appeal of the BMTC is
Dismissed.
(a) The amount in deposit by the Insurance
Company shall be forthwith transmitted to
the Tribunal.
(b) The Registry is directed to return the Trial
Court Record to the Tribunal along with
the certified copy of the order passed by
this court forthwith without any delay.
(c) No Costs.
NC: 2023:KHC:45705
8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
SD/-
JUDGE
RMS
