Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs Shivanna And Anr on 17 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:259
MFA No. 200900 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.200900 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NWKRTC BAGALKOT DIVISION,
TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHIVANNA S/O BHIMANNAGOUDA NAGANATAGI,
AGE: 11 YEARS, MINOR,
REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL FATHER
BHIMANNAGOUDA S/O NAGAPPAGOUDA
Digitally signed
NAGANATAGI,
by LUCYGRACE AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRI.,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF R/O: HOTPETH, TQ. SHAHAPUR,
KARNATAKA
DIST. YADGIR-585 201.
2. BASAWARAJ S/O MALLAYYA CHILLAL,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUS DRIVER,
(ILKAL BUS DEPOT), R/I K'A ILAKAL BUS DEPOT,
ILKAL, TQ. HUNGUND,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. SALOMAN ALFRED, ADV. FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:259
MFA No. 200900 of 2019
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND THE AWARD DATED 15.10.2018 IN
MVC.NO.29/2015 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL.
MACT AT SHAHAPUR AND EXONERATE THE APPELLANT FROM
THE LIABILITY TO PAY COMPENSATION TO THE
RESPONDENTS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
The appellant - corporation has approached this
Court assailing the judgment in MVC.No.29/2015 dated
15.10.2018 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Addl.
MACT, Shahapur, whereby the Tribunal awarded a
compensation of Rs.5,64,918/- in respect of the injuries
sustained by the claimant.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:259
02. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
None appears for the respondent.
03. The facts of the case reveal that on 11.11.2013
at about 03.00 p.m. the claimant had boarded the bus of
the appellant - corporation and when he was traveling the
left back tyre of the bus burst and due to the same, a tin
reaper was disengaged and the claimant sustained
grievous injuries due to its hit on his right leg. Thereafter,
the claimant had taken the treatment in the hospital and
ultimately, he filed the petition, which came to be allowed
by the Tribunal.
04. Now, the appellant - corporation, who was
owning the said bus has approached this Court contending
that the accident was not due to the negligence of the
driver of the bus or the corporation and therefore, it is not
liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Inter-alia
it is also contended that the quantum of the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:259
05. The first ground urged by the learned counsel
for the appellant - corporation that there was no such
negligence on the part of the bus driver, therefore, it is
not liable to pay the compensation cannot be accepted. It
is pertinent to note that when the corporation is owning
and running the buses, the hazards associated with its use
also are to be borne by the appellant - corporation. The
basic principles of the tort as laid down in the case of
Rylands vs. Fletcher being the underlying principle, the
appellant - corporation cannot seek absolvement of its
liability on the ground that there was no such role played
by it in bursting of the tyre. In umpteen number of
judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when
the vehicle was being in use, if an injury was caused due
to the vis-major, the company is liable to pay the
compensation. Therefore, this argument cannot be
accepted.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:259
06. Insofar as quantum of the compensation is
concerned, the Tribunal having considered the judgment in
the case of Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager,
The National Insurance Company Limited and
Another1 has awarded the compensation to the claimant
who is aged of 11 years under the following heads:-
Sl. Heads Compensation
Awarded
No.
1. Towards loss of limbs Rs.4,00,000/-
2. Towards pain and suffering Rs.0,20,000/-
3. Towards special food and diet Rs.0,20,000/-
4. Towards travel expenses Rs.0,20,000/-
5. Towards facility and Rs.0,20,000/-
accommodation
Towards loss of income during
6. Rs.00,7,000/-
treatment
7. Towards medical expenses Rs.0,77,918/-
Total Rs.5,64,918/-
(2014) 14 SCC 396
NC: 2025:KHC-K:259
07. A careful consideration of the evidence available
on record, it is seen that the claimant who was aged about
07 years at the time of accident had suffered fracture of
right calcaneum, right distal tibia and fibula along with
fracture of talus. The medical officer who assessed the
disability had deposed that the claimant had suffered a
disability of nearly 35% which included 65% to the right
lower limb and 40% to the left lower limb. On the basis of
such evidence available on record, the Tribunal has come
to the conclusion that the disability has to be considered in
the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun as referred
above and has awarded the compensation to the claimant.
08. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is
no need for interference in the quantum of the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, finding
no merit in the appeal, the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the following;
NC: 2025:KHC-K:259
ORDER
I. The appeal is dismissed.
II. Amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the
Tribunal immediately.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
KJJ
CT: AK
