[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Controller North West ... vs Smt Sujata W/O Durgesh Waddar on 7 March, 2026

                                                  -1-
                                                               NC: 2026:KHC-D:3641
                                                           MFA No. 101046 of 2021


                      HC-KAR




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                               DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
                                                BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

                       MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101046 OF 2021 (MV-D)


                      BETWEEN:

                      1.   THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
                           NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD
                           TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
                           BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI.
                           REP. BY DULY CONSTITUTED AUTHORITY
                           CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
                           NWKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE,
                           GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI.


                                                                       ...APPELLANT
                             (BY SRI. M K SOUDAGAR, ADV)

                      AND:

VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI
                      1.   SMT. SUJATA
                           W/O DURGESH WADDAR
Digitally signed by
                           AGE. 21 YEARS,
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI
                           OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
Date: 2026.03.12           R/O. KARADIGUDDA VILLAGE,
11:08:41 +0530
                           RAL. RAMDURG,
                           DIST. BELAGAVI-591123.

                      2.   MISS. ASHWINI
                           D/O. TIMMANNA WADDAR
                           AGE. 17 YEARS,
                           OCC. STUDENT
                           R/O. KARADIGUDDA VILLAGE,
                               -2-
                                            NC: 2026:KHC-D:3641
                                      MFA No. 101046 of 2021


HC-KAR




     RAL. RAMDURG,
     DIST. BELAGAVI-591123.

     (SINCE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR
     REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL
     GUARDIAN SISTER RESPONDENT NO.1)

3.   SMT. DURGAVVA
     W/O. SHATTEPPA WADDAR
     AGE. 66 YEARS,
     OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O. KARADIGUDDA VILLAGE,
     RAL. RAMDURG,
     DIST. BELAGAVI-591123.

                                                 ...RESPONDENTS

      (BY SRI. SRINIVAS K. NADAMANI, ADV FOR R1 & R3;
       R2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1)


      THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CASE MVC NO.2450/2018
ON THE FILE THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND
MEMBER,    ADDL.    MOTOR     ACCIDENT      CLAIMS     TRIBUNAL,
BELAGAVI AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
03.08.2020 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST AND GRANT
SUCH OTHER AND/OR FURTHER RELIEF'S AS THIS HON'BLE
COURT     DEEMS    FIT   TO   GRANT    IN     THE    FACTS   AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.


      THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                         -3-
                                                      NC: 2026:KHC-D:3641
                                                  MFA No. 101046 of 2021


    HC-KAR




                               ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

This appeal is filed by the NWKRTC1 challenging the

judgment and award dated 03.08.2020 passed in MVC No.

2450 of 2018 by the Court of V Additional District Judge and

Member of Additional MACT, Belagavi ('Tribunal' for short).

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal

are as follows:

2.1. On 12.12.2017, the deceased Smt. Manjula and

Durgappa were travelling in a NWKRTC bus bearing

Reg.No.KA-28/F-1542 Kulageri to Ramadurg. When the said

bus was near Karadigudda cross, which was at a distance of

100 metres, the deceased Durgappa had come near the

rear side door and stood there with an intention to get down

from the bus at Karadigudda cross. When the said

Durgappa was standing at the foot board, the bus driver

who was driving the bus in high speed in a rash and

North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3641

HC-KAR

negligent manner, abruptly applied the brake, due to which

Durgappa fell down on the road from the running bus. It is

contended that, Manjula, who was stated to be occupying

the middle seat of the bus, rushed to the rescue of

Durgappa, and in doing so, she was thrown out of the bus

through the rear side door and suffered severe head and

other bodily injuries. Durgappa died during the treatment

and Manjula succumbed to the injuries later on 21.12.2017.

The deceased, Manjula was aged about 34 years and at the

time of accident, she was working as a Coolie, and earning

₹15,000/- per month. She was contributing her entire

income to the family. The petitioners being the legal

representatives of the deceased Manjula, filed a claim

petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of

Manjula in the said accident.

2.2. NWKRTC filed a statement of objections before

the Tribunal denying the averments made in the claim

petition. It was contended that, the deceased Manjula has

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3641

HC-KAR

contributed for the cause of the accident and there is a

contributory negligence on the part of the deceased

Manjula. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition.

2.3. The Tribunal, based on the rival pleadings of the

parties, framed the relevant issues.

2.4. The petitioners, to substantiate their case,

examined petitioner No.1 was examined petitioner No.1 as

PW1, and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. In

rebuttal, the respondent examined the bus driver as RW1,

and did not mark any documents.

2.5. The Tribunal, after assessing the oral and

documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part

with costs and awarded a compensation of ₹14,84,900/-

with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of

claim petition till its realisation. The NWKRTC was directed

to deposit the compensation amount with the accrued

interest.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3641

HC-KAR

3. The NWKRTC, being aggrieved by the impugned

judgment and award, filed this appeal.

4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for

NWKRTC and learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for NWKRTC submits that, the

deceased Manjula, in order to save the deceased Durgappa,

fell down from the bus and there is no negligence on part of

the driver of the bus. He submits that, the deceased

Manjula died because of her own negligence. He further

submits that, the Tribunal could have fixed the liability and

contributory negligence on the part of the deceased

Manjula. The Tribunal committed an error in fastening the

entire liability on NWKRTC. Hence, on these grounds, he

prays to allow the appeal.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents

submits that, the deceased Durgappa was standing on the

foot board of the bus, the driver of the bus had abruptly

applied the brake, the deceased Durgappa fell down, the

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3641

HC-KAR

deceased Manjula, though she was occupying the middle

seat of the bus, came to the rescue of the deceased

Durgappa, wherein she fell down from the bus from the rear

side door and sustained grievous injuries and later on,

succumbed to the injuries. He submits that the accident is

of 2017. and the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional

income as per the chart issued by the Karnataka State Legal

Services Authority, however, the Tribunal has taken the

income at ₹8,000/-, which is on the lower side. He submits

that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the

lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss

the appeal.

7. Perused the records and considered the

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

8. The point that arises for consideration is

regarding the liability.

9. It is undisputed fact that, the deceased Durgappa

and the deceased Manjula were travelling in a NWKRTC bus

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3641

HC-KAR

bearing Reg.No.KA-28/F-1542 on 12.12.2017. When the

bus was near Karadigudda cross which was at a distance of

100 metres, the deceased Durgappa came near the rear

side door and stood there with an intention to get down

from the bus at Karadigudda cross. The bus driver had

abruptly applied the brake, due to which the deceased

Durgappa fell down on the road from the running bus. The

deceased Manjula, who was occupying the middle seat of

the bus, rushed to rescue the deceased Durgappa and while

doing so, she was thrown out from the rear side door and

sustained severe head and bodily injuries. Later on, she

succumbed to the injuries on 21.12.2017.

Reg. Liability:

10. To show that the accident was caused due to

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the

petitioners have produced charge sheet marked as Ex.P6.

Learned counsel for the NWKRTC submits that, the accident

was caused due to the negligence of the deceased Manjula.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3641

HC-KAR

To prove the said fact, the NWKRTC has examined its Driver

as RW1. The Driver, who was driving the bus will not be in a

position to see whether there was a negligence on the part

of the deceased Manjula. The proper person would have

been the Conductor. The NWKRTC has withheld the material

witness. Hence, an adverse inference has to be drawn

under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The

Driver, while driving the bus, will be always seeing on the

front side and he cannot see on the rear side. Hence, the

evidence of RW1 cannot be considered to prove that there

was negligence on the part of the deceased Manjula in

causing the accident. The said aspect has been considered

by the Tribunal in paragraph No.10 of the impugned

judgment, where it was rightly held that the accident was

caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver.

Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment.

11. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

- 10 -

                                              NC: 2026:KHC-D:3641



 HC-KAR




                             ORDER

      i.     The appeal is dismissed;

      ii.    The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to
             the Tribunal;