This miscellaneous first appeal was dismissed. The High Court upheld the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal's award of compensation, finding the bus driver solely responsible and the Tribunal's assessment of income just and proper despite lack of documentary evidence.
Appeal dismissed; compensation award upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3414/2013 (MV).
Between:
The Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Kolar Depot, C.B.Pur Road, Kolar, Now through the Chief Law Officer, KSRTC, Bangalore. …. Appellant.
(By Sri K. Nagaraja, Adv.)
And :
Both are r/a Beechagondahalli Village, Vemgal Hobli, Kolar Tq. 563 101. …. Respondents.
(By Smt. P.V.Kalpana, Adv. for R1 R2 served)
2
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award in MVC No.73/2012 dated 7.12.2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge & Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal at Kolar, etc.
This MFA coming on for Admission this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Kolar, has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and award in MVC No.73/2012 dated 7.12.2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge and MACT, Kolar, whereby the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.6,54,400/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit.
3
proceeding towards Beechagondanahalli Gate from
Beechagondanahalli Village on a Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-53 E-8545 for the purpose of bringing grass to his goats. He was riding the motor cycle slowly and in a cautious manner keeping his motor cycle on the extreme left side of the road. At about 7.45 a.m., when he reached a place near Beechagondanahalli Gate on Chintamani-H Cross road, the driver of KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-07 F-1023, who was driving his bus from Chintamani towards Beechagondanahalli gate in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the bus and dashed against the motor cycle. As a result, Nanjappa sustained multiple grievous and fatal injuries and succumbed to the said injuries in the hospital.
4
has framed the following issues for consideration:
“(1) Whether the petitioners prove that deceased B.S.Nanjappa died due to rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus bearing Regn.No.KA.07/F.1023 by its driver?
as P.W1 and P.W2. Documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked in
their evidence. The driver of the bus was examined as RW1. On appreciation of the materials on record, the Tribunal held that the
5
driver of the bus alone is responsible for the accident. As noticed above, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.6,54,400/with interest at 6%per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit.
appellant-Corporation and Smt.P.V.Kalpana, learned Counsel for the first respondent.
the offending bus is not fully responsible for the accident. It is argued that the deceased was coming from a cross road and took a sudden left turn in a rash and negligent manner without seeing as to whether any vehicles are coming on the main road. The driver of the bus is partially responsible for the accident. In this connection,
he has taken me through the spot sketch and other documents marked in the evidence of the parties. He has also taken me through the oral evidence of the parties.
6
the income of the deceased at Rs.200/- per day, which is on a higher side. No documents have been produced in support of the said contention. Thus, the award of compensation is excessive.
claimant-respondents has sought to justify the impugned judgment and award.
learned Counsel at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record.
7
Beechagondanahalli Gate from Beechagondanahalli Village on his motor cycle. When he was riding the motor cycle slowly and cautiously keeping the vehicle towards extreme left side of the road, the driver of the offending bus lost control and dashed against the motor cycle as a result of which the deceased sustained multiple grievous and fatal injuries. The suggestion that the bus was not driven in a rash and negligent manner has been denied by P.W2. If the evidence of PW2 is read with the spot sketch at Ex.P6, it would clearly indicate that the deceased had already entered the main road and had travelled up-to some distance. The place of accident is towards eastern portion of the road. Both the deceased and the bus were proceedings towards H.Cross from Chintamani side. It is also clear that the accident had taken place at a distance of about 4 feet from eastern edge of the road. It is thus clear that the motor cycle was not moving at the center of the road. As stated above, the road is 18 ft. in width. The driver of the bus had sufficient space to drive his bus without touching the motor cycle. In fact, the driver of the bus, who was examined as R.W1 has stated that the bike touched
8
the left side front portion of the bus and accidentally fell down. It is also to be noticed here that after investigation of the complaint filed by P.W1, the Police have charge sheeted the driver of the bus. No complaint has been lodged against the rider of the motor cycle. Taking into consideration all these materials on record, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the driver of the bus alone is responsible for the accident. I am of the view that the deceased was not responsible in any way for the accident.
9
month, which is just and proper. The award of compensation towards loss of dependency is just and reasonable.
dismissed. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the
Tribunal forthwith. No costs.
Sd/JUDGE.
BMM/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the claim petitioners are entitled to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal despite the appellant's objections regarding driver liability and income fixation.
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency was excessive given the lack of documentary evidence regarding the deceased's income.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Kolar Depot
Smt. Parvathamma
Sri Girish
S. Abdul Nazeer
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
