Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Khajabee Alias Kahajama And Anr on 31 July, 2024
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5498
MFA No. 200901 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200901 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
KSRTC HAVERI BUS DEPOT
HAVERI THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NEKRTC SHAHAPUR DEPOT
SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADGIR.
THROUGH AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KHAJABEE ALIAS KAHAJAMA
Digitally signed
W/O BASHEER SAB BASEER AHMED
by RENUKA ALIAS ABDUL BASEER AHMED KURESHI
Location: HIGH AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COOLI & PRIVATE WORK,
COURT OF R/O. DIGGIBASE, SHAHAPUR,
KARNATAKA
DIST:YADGIR-585101.
2. SHARANABASAPPA
S/O CHANDRARAYA PUJARI
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: KSRTC BUS DRIVER
BATCH NO.431, R/O. HAVERI BUS DEPOT
AT PRESENT: GOGI (K) TQ:SHAHAPUR
DIST. YADGIR-585101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GANESH NAIK, ADV. FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5498
MFA No. 200901 of 2019
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND THE AWARD DATED
17.09.2018 IN MVC NO.72/2016 PASSED BY SR. CIVIL JUDGE
AND ADDL. MACT AT SHAHAPUR AND EXONERATE THE
APPELLANT FORMAT E LIABILITY TO PAY COMPENSATION TO
THE RESPONDENTS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. The appeal is by the NEKRTC challenging the
compensation of Rs.6,56,000/- awarded to respondent
No.1, for the injuries suffered by her in the accident dated
18.10.2015.
2. The respondent No.1-insurer instituted a proceeding
under Section 166 of M.V.Act, contending that when she
was standing by the side of the road, the bus owned by
the appellant and driven by its driver-respondent No.2 hit
her and as a result she suffered grievous injuries.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5498
3. It was the case of the NEKRTC that the accident
occurred as a result of the claimant suddenly crossing the
road and she was responsible for the accident and she
could not claim compensation for her own wrong.
4. The Tribunal taking note of the fact that no evidence
was adduced on behalf of NEKRTC to establish the
negligence on the part of the claimant and also taking into
consideration the police had initiated the proceedings
against the driver has proceeded to hold that the driver of
the bus was responsible and had awarded the
aforementioned compensation of Rs.6,56,000/-.
5. In the light of the admitted fact that the driver of the
bus who was employed by the appellant was not examined
to establish that the claimant was responsible for the
accident by suddenly crossing the road, the entire defence
put forth by the NEKRTC that the claimant was negligent
would have to fail.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5498
6. The Tribunal, in my view, was justified in holding that
the driver of the bus was responsible, having regard to the
other material that had been produced, such as FIR,
charge sheet etc. If the best witness i.e., the driver of the
bus was not examined to establish the negligence on the
part of the claimant, the appellant being the employer
cannot contend that there was no negligence on the part
of his employee, the driver.
7. I find no grounds to entertain the appeal and the
appeal is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
MSR
