Dismissed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Ravikumar

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2022MFA/2592/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation appealed against an award of Rs. 12,000 compensation. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a bare complaint without evidence does not establish contributory negligence to reduce the compensation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the impugned judgment and award dated 19.01.2015 awarding compensation of Rs. 12,000 were upheld.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

M.F.A.NO.2592/2015 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE-560027, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

RAVIKUMAR S/O MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O KENCHAGONDANAHALLI, BHADRAVATHI.

¶13

R. RAGHAVENDRA S/O B.S.RAVICHANDRACHAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O 8^TH MAIN ROAD, 2^ND CROSS, SHANTHINAGAR,

¶14

¶15

SHIVAMOGGA-577 201, (KSRTC BUS DRIVER)

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(NOTICE SERVED ON R-1 AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 17.01.2017 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶18

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.01.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.713/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT-12, BHADRAVATHI, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.12,000/WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS COMPLETE PAYMENT.

¶19

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant - KSRTC. Though the respondents were served with notice, they did not choose to engage the counsel or to appear personally.

¶22

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 19.01.2015, passed in M.V.C.No.713/2012 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Addl. MACT -12 at Bhadravathi (‘the Tribunal’ for short).

¶23

¶24

The Tribunal after considering the oral and

¶25

documentary evidence on record has awarded compensation of Rs.12,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its payment. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant - KSRTC.

¶26

In this appeal the main contention of the appellant -

¶27

KSRTC that the driver of the bus lodged a complaint against the driver of the tempo and the same was not accepted by the Tribunal. The case has been registered against the driver of the bus and the Tribunal failed to consider the complaint given by the driver of the bus and ought to have taken the contributory negligence.

¶28

Though the learned counsel for the appellant - KSRTC contends that the Tribunal ought to have taken the contributory negligence, but did not lead any evidence with regard to the same. Merely giving complaint against the driver of the tempo, is not a ground to come to a conclusion that there was a contributory negligence. The same would have to be substantiated by the appellant - KSRTC by leading cogent

¶29

¶30

evidence. In the absence of any cogent evidence, the question

¶31

of taking the contributory negligence does not arise.

¶32

In view of the above discussion made above, the

¶33

appeal is dismissed.

¶34

The amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

¶35

Registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

PMR

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Ravikumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Ravikumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Manjula Vs Prasanna Kumara

The Managing Director Vs Kum. Sindhu

The Managing Director Vs Smt. Girija Bhaskar

Vimala @ Hemalatha Vs M.M.J.Somashekharappa

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. M. Sulochana

Legal Manager Vs Bherulal