Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs Thippeswamy on 2 February, 2024
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4588
MFA No. 4956 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4956 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
KSRTC, HAVERI DIVISION, HAVERI,
NOW REPRESENTED BY
NORTH WESTERN KARNATAKA
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
CENTRAL OFFICE, HUBLI,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
CENTRAL OFFICE HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THIPPESWAMY,
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O THIPPAIAH,
R/O BANJIGERE VILLAGE,
CHALLAKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
NOW RESIDING AT KABBIGERED
Digitally signed by JAI
JYOTHI J GOLLARAHATTY VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK,
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501.
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KSRTC, K.H. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. CHAIRMAN INTERNAL SECURITY FUND,
KSRTC, K.H. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 AND R3 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED
28.06.2018)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4588
MFA No. 4956 of 2018
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.12.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.811/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT-4, CHITRADURGA,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,13,888/- WITH INTEREST
AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appeal is filed by the KSRTC contending that the
claimant has also contributed his rash and negligence to
the accident and for reducing quantum of compensation.
2. The factum of accident, injuries sustained by
the claimant are not in dispute. Whether the claimant has
also contributed his negligence or not, is the question to
be considered.
3. Heard the arguments of both parties and
perused the materials on record.
NC: 2024:KHC:4588
4. In the present case, the driver of KSRTC Bus
bearing registration No.KA-42/F-1132 was driving the bus
and hit the motorcycle from behind when the claimant
stopped his motor cycle for air check up by the side of
road. Exs.P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4 and P-7 are FIR, complaint,
spot mahazars, spot sketch and charge sheet respectfully,
prove the fact that when the claimant had stopped his
motorcycle for air check by the side of road, the KSRTC
bus had hit the motorcycle from behind causing injuries to
the claimant.
5. Though the driver of KSRTC bus who was
examined as RW-1 deposed that he is not rash and
negligent, but there is no corroborative evidence on the
part of RW-1 whereas the claimant has produced evidence
as discussed above proving the fact that claimant has
stopped motorcycle for air check up and the motorcycle
was static and the bus had hit the motorcycle and
claimant. Therefore, this evidence on record proves that
driver of the bus was completely rash and negligent and
NC: 2024:KHC:4588
the Tribunal had correctly evaluated the evidence, which
needs no interference and as such finding of fact that the
bus driver was completely rash and negligence is
confirmed.
6. From the medical evidence on record it is
proved that claimant has suffered injuries of comminuted
I.T fracture, right femur and fracture of (L) 3rd 4th and 5th
metatarsal bones and avulsion of wound to the foot and
the claimant had underwent surgery. From the evidence
on record it is proved that the claimant has suffered 37%
of physical disability to the right femur limb. Therefore,
the tribunal has arrived at correct determination of
compensation under all heads.
7. Considering the nature of injuries and disability
sustained, the pain undergone and treatment taken in the
hospital and for multiple times, the claimant had
underwent surgery, which all prove that the quantum of
compensation determined by the claimant is found to be
correct, which needs no interference. Hence, the
NC: 2024:KHC:4588
compensation determined and awarded is just, proper and
correct.
8. Therefore, the appeal filed by the KSRTC is
liable to be dismissed. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SRA
CT: BHK
