Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Controller, Ksrtc vs Sri. Abhishek on 10 June, 2024

Author: K.Natarajan

Bench: K.Natarajan

                                                   -1-
                                                               NC: 2024:KHC:20088
                                                             MFA No. 5693 of 2021




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

                                             BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5693 OF 2021 (MV-I)
                   BETWEEN:

                   THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC
                   MYSORE DIVISION,
                   MYSORE-570001
                   (KSRTC BUS BEARING NO.KA-09-F-5077)
                   REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
                                                                  ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. DABALI FAKKIRAPPA SHIDRAMAPPA.,ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   SRI. ABHISHEK
                   S/O RAMANNA
                   AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
                   R/AT NO.BELTUR DODDI VILLAGE,
                   KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK,
                   MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428.

                                                                    ...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed
by BHARATHI        (BY SRI. ANANDA K.,ADVOCATE)
S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
                   JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.01.2021            PASSED IN MVC
                   NO.187/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE        ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
                   JUDGE   AND   MACT,   MADDUR,    MANDYA   DISTRICT,   AWARDING
                   COMPENSATION OF RS.80,103/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A.
                   FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.


                          THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
                   COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                 -2-
                                                               NC: 2024:KHC:20088
                                                         MFA No. 5693 of 2021




                                       JUDGMENT

1. The above appeal is filed by the KSRTC under Section

173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881 challenging the

judgment and award dated 25.01.2021 passed in MVC

No.187/2018 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT,

Maddur2.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are

referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.

4. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly stated are

that on 18.01.2016 at about 9.00 p.m., the petitioner along

with one Sannappa and petitioner's friend Krishna went to the

Hospital at Besagarahalli for treatment. Since no doctor was

available at Besagarahalli, they went towards Maddur

Government Hospital. As Krishna was suffering from vomiting,

he requested the petitioner to ride his motorcycle bearing

No.KA-11/EB-3043. At about 11.10 p.m. when they were near

KSRTC bus stand on Mysuru-Bengaluru main road, a KSRTC

Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act's

Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'

NC: 2024:KHC:20088

bus bearing No.KA-09/F-5077 coming from Mysuru going

towards Bengaluru, while taking right turn to go inside Maddur

KSRTC bus stand, hit the motorcycle of the petitioner. They fell

down. The petitioner sustained injuries to his head and other

parts of the body. Immediately after the accident, the

petitioner was shifted to Maddur Hospital where he was given

first aid treatment and then he was referred to MIMS Hospital,

Mandya. Again he was shifted to JSS Hospital, Mysuru upon

the advice of the doctor for more treatment as inpatient where

he was taken treatment as in patient from 10.01.2016 to

13.01.2016.

5. Hence, the petitioner filed the claim petition under

Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation for the injuries

sustained in the road traffic accident. The wound certificate

(Ex.P4) reveals that the petitioner has suffered laceration on

the chin of 3 x 1 cm, swelling on right eye and lip laceration 2

x 1 cm - lower lip and 5 x 1 cum upper lip and also suffered

fractures in the facial bones. It is stated that the petitioner has

incurred more than `2,00,000/- towards medical expenses and

`50,000/- towards food, attendant, transport and other

expenses. Due to the above said injuries, the petitioner

NC: 2024:KHC:20088

suffered permanent partial disability to the hands and legs and

is suffering from severe frequent headache. Hence, the

petitioner filed the claim petition seeking compensation along

with interest.

6. On service of summons, the respondent -KSRTC appeared

through its counsel and filed written statement denying the

averments made in the claim petition and also contended that

the KSRTC bus was entered near the bus stand and at that

time, the above motorcycle came in a rash and negligent

manner and hit against the KSRTC bus and the accident

caused due to the rash riding of motorcycle of the rider and

there is a contributory negligence on the part of the driver as

well as the rider of the motorcycle. Hence, prayed for dismissal

of the claim petition.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal

framed the following issues:

i. Whether the petitioner proves that he was sustained grievous injuries in RTA that occurred on 08.10.2016 at about 11:10 p.m. near Maddur KSRTC Bus stand, on Mysore- Bangalore main road, on account of rash and

NC: 2024:KHC:20088

negligent manner of the KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-09/F-5077, by its driver?

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, from whom?

iii. What order?

8. In order to prove their case, claimant/petitioner examined

himself as PW.1 and a witness by name Dr.Shivanna, has been

examined as PW.2. Exs.P1 to Ex.P14 were marked in evidence.

Respondent has examined its driver as RW.1. No documents

were marked in evidence. The Tribunal, by the impugned

judgment and award has granted compensation of `80,103/- on

various heads along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and

directed the respondent to deposit the compensation amount

along with interest. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal

on various heads are as under:

Pecuniary damages

Medical and hospitalization `36,103/- expenses

Transportation/conveyance, `5,000/- nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure

NC: 2024:KHC:20088

Loss of earnings during the period `9,000/- of treatment

Non-

Non-Pecuniary damages

Damages for pain, suffering and `20,000/- trauma as a consequences of the injuries

Loss of amenities/loss of prospects `10,000/-

      of marriage

      Total compensation                           `80,103/-
                                                   `80,103/-

9. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the

respondent - KSRTC filed this appeal challenging the liability

fastened on the KSRTC.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material available on record

11. In respect of the same accident, the other two

claimants/pillion riders who traveled in the motorcycle was also

filed the claim petition in MVC Nos.132/2016 and 133/2016 and

common judgment was delivered by the Tribunal which was

challenged by the KSRTC by filing MFA No.758/2018 and Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court by judgment dated 18.07.2013,

NC: 2024:KHC:20088

dismissed the appeal filed by the KSRTC. Para Nos.10, 11 and

12 of the judgment reads as under:

10. A careful perusal of the Police papers which have been produced before the Tribunal show that the accident has occurred on Bengaluru-

Mysuru highway which has four lanes at the place of the accident. Obviously, the bus was coming from Mysuru towards Bengaluru and he had to take a right turn to enter into the bus stand by crossing the lane which was leading from Bengaluru to Mysuru. It is also an admitted fact that the motorcycle was moving towards Mysuru. It is evident from the sketch and the Police papers that the bus driver had not seen that the motorcycle which was coming on his right lane from the opposite direction before he ventured to enter the gates of the bus stand.

11. It is evident that the Motor Vehicle Rules contemplate that a person who is driving a vehicle has to give way for the vehicles which are coming on his right side. Obviously, the motorcycle was coming on the right lane of the bus driver from the opposite direction and he would have very well seen the motorcycle coming from the opposite direction. Even then, he ventured to enter the right lane and cross the

NC: 2024:KHC:20088

same to enter the bus stand. What was not anticipated by the bus driver is the speed of the motorcycle. There was no need for the motorcycle rider i.e., the petitioner to anticipate that the bus driver would take right turn and enter into the bus stand. It has come in the investigation papers that the bus driver had not shown any indication to enter in the right lane. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that there was negligence on the part of the Bus driver. However the rider of the motorcycle as well as the owner have been charge sheeted by the Police for the offences punishable under the Motor Vehicles Act.

12. It is obvious that no negligence is attributed to the rider of the motorcycle. The circumstances which are found from the evidence in form of Police papers as well as the testimony of PW.1 also show that there was no such negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. Indeed he was riding the motorcycle with two persons as pillion riders. In the complaint also it is mentioned that the petitioner was unwell and he was being taken to the hospital. Under these circumstances, sufficient reasons has been shown by the complainant that it was an emergency and therefore, they were going to the hospital. It is relevant to note that the violation

NC: 2024:KHC:20088

of the Motor Vehicle Rules, to certain extent are relaxable when a person is being shifted to the hospital under an emergency. Therefore, though the allegation for the offence under Sections 279, 337 of IPC is against the rider of the motorcycle also, it is not possible to hold that there was any contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. The petitioner herein is being one of the pillion rider, as owner of the motorcycle, cannot maintain a petition against his own insurer. Under these circumstances, so also the non-existence of the policy for the motorcycle cannot be a reason to hold that there was negligence on his part. Evidently, the negligence was on the part of the bus driver and therefore, no fault can be found in respect of finding of the Tribunal that the bus driver was negligent. The non-existence of a insurance policy for the motorcycle and driving the same with two pillion riders cannot per-se be construed to be a negligence on the part of the rider. Hence, no interference is required in respect of the conclusion reached by the Tribunal concerning the liability.

12. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has categorically held

that there is no rash and negligent riding of the rider of the

motorcycle whereas, the accident has occurred due to rash and

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:20088

negligent riding of KSRTC bus by its driver. The judgment of

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has attained finality.

Respondent-KSRTC has not filed any SLP before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court. When the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench is

not challenged, it is binding on the KSRTC.

13. In view of judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

MFA No.758/2018, there is no question to interfere with the