Partly allowed

The Managing Director v. Surendranath

Karnataka HC2 Nov 2023MFA/1052/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident compensation matter, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the appeal filed by KSRTC. The Court reformulated the liability apportionment, holding the private bus driver 80% negligent and the KSRTC bus driver 20% negligent. Consequently, the compensation was redistributed to reflect these proportions, reducing KSRTC's liability and increasing that of the insurance company.

What did the court decide?

The award was modified to impose 80% liability on the private bus (respondent 6) and 20% liability on KSRTC (appellant). KSRTC directed to pay Rs. 2,46,600 and the insurance company Rs. 9,86,400 with

The Managing Director Vs Surendranath — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:39244 MFA No. 1052 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1052 OF 2017

¶7

(MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027 ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE IN MANGALURU DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC BEJAI, MANGALURU D.K. - 575 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. F.S DABALI.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SURENDRANATH S/O KRISHNAYYA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶15

USHA W/O SURENDRANATH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶16

PREETHI D/O SURENDRANATH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:39244 MFA No. 1052 of 2017

¶18

PRIYA D/O SURENDRANATH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶19

RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO 4 R/AT DINAKARA COMPOUND, J.M.ROAD, KODIKAL, NEAR 5TH CROSS MASJID, POST ASHOK NAGAR, MANGALURU - 575 006.

¶20

SADASHIVA SUVARNA S/O LATE P KITTA POOJARY, AGE MAJOR, R/AT MAROLI PAADI HOUSE, KANKANADY, MAROLI VILLAGE, MANGALURU - 575 002.

¶21

THE MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KRISHNA PRASAD BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, M.G.ROAD, LALABAGH, MANGALURU - 575 003.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. KRISHNAMOORTHY D.,ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4; SRI. S. V. HEGDE MULKHAND ., ADVOCATE FOR R-6; R5- SERVED)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.03.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1102/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT, MANGALURU, D.K, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.12,33,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:39244 MFA No. 1052 of 2017

¶27

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

This is an appeal filed by appellant-KSRTC aggrieved by the award passed in MVC No.1102/2013, dated 02.03.2016, passed by the II Additional District Judge & III Addl. MACT, Mangaluru (DK).

¶30

The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident that took place on 14.06.2003. It is the case of the claimant that on 14.06.2013 at about 4.45 p.m., the deceased was proceeding in a motor cycle as a rider from Aadyar side towards Alape, Mangaluru on NH-75, at that time a bus came in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner from Padil side towards Adyar side and in the process of overtaking a lorry, came in a wrong side and dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to which the

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:39244 MFA No. 1052 of 2017

¶32

deceased lost control over the vehicle and at the same time, the KSRTC bus came from Adyar side towards Padil side and in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner again dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to the impact the deceased was thrown out of the road and tat that time, back side tyre of the KSRTC bus passed over the deceased. Due to the impact the deceased sustained grievous injuries all over the body and was shifted to the hospital and later he succumbed to the injuries.

¶33

The court below on the issue of the liability has

¶34

held that there is a composite negligence on the part of both the vehicles i.e., the private bus and the KSRTC bus and apportioned the liability of 50% on both the vehicles. Aggrieved thereby the KSRTC is before this Court. The learned counsel appearing for KSRTC submits that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus, and because of the rash and negligent driving of the

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:39244 MFA No. 1052 of 2017

¶36

private bus which is insured with the sixth respondent - insurance company, the hind side of the private bus had touched the handle of the bike and the rider of the bike fell down and as it is a highway and as the KSRTC bus was coming from the behind the accident had taken place. It is submitted that because of the negligence of the private bus the accident had taken place and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the insurance

¶38

company submits that the accident had taken place because of the negligence of the driver of the KSRTC bus. He has relied on the evidence of the PW-2, the pillion rider of the motorcycle, who has stated that the private bus had not dashed to the motorcycle and they are not responsible

¶39

for the death of the deceased and in fact it is because of the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus the accident had taken place. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the insurance company that the charge-sheet is filed on both the vehicles. He further submits that the

¶40

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:39244 MFA No. 1052 of 2017

¶41

Tribunal had apportioned the negligence on the driver of the private bus as though there is no negligence on his part. He submits that no grounds are made out by the KSRTC and submits that as the accident had taken place because of the negligence of the driver of the KSRTC bus the court below had rightly passed the award.

¶42

Having heard the learned counsel on either

¶43

side, perused the material on record. In this case the consistent case of the claimant as well as the evidence of PW-2 who was the pillion rider, is that while the deceased was proceeding on the road, the private bus in the process of overtaking a lorry, had dashed the hind portion of the bus to the handle of the bike and the rider of the motorcycle lost control and alongwith the motorcycle has fell down and in the mean time the KSRTC bus which was coming from behind has further hit the motorcycle and in that process the rider of the vehicle had sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. No doubt in this case

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:39244 MFA No. 1052 of 2017

¶46

ultimately it is the KSRTC bus which has hit the rider of the motorcycle and he has sustained injuries. First the negligence is on the part of the private bus which in the process of overtaking a lorry had hit the handle of the motorcycle and because of the impact, the deceased fell down and that being a highway, the KSRTC bus was also proceeding on the National Highway and the driver of the bus was not able to control the vehicle and must have hit the two-wheeler. No doubt if the KSRTC driver had been more cautious the accident would have not occurred. But

¶47

however, principally the driver of the private bus is responsible for this accident. In view of the same this Court is of the view that the court below had wrongly apportioned the contributory negligence of 50% on the KSRTC bus and 50% on the private bus. In the considered opinion of this Court it is 80% negligence on the driver of the private bus and 20% on the driver of the KSRTC bus.

¶48

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:39244 MFA No. 1052 of 2017

¶49

Accordingly, the appeal of the KSRTC is allowed

¶50

and the KSRTC is liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,46,600/i.e., 20% of the compensation and the sixth respondent - insurance company is liable to pay an amount of Rs.9,86,400/- i.e., 80% of the compensation.

¶51

Accordingly, the appeal of the KSRTC is partly is partly allowed by apportioning the contributory negligence at 20% on KSRTC and 80% on the Private bus.

¶52

i) The contributory negligence 80% negligence is fastened on the driver of the private bus and 20% on the driver of the KSRTC bus.

¶53

ii) Out of the total compensation of Rs.12,33,000/, the KSRTC is liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,46,600/- (20%) and the sixth respondent - insurance company of the private bus is liable to pay an amount of Rs.9,86,400/-(80%) along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶54

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:39244 MFA No. 1052 of 2017

¶55

iii) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the court below forthwith and in case of any excess amount, KSRTC is at liberty to withdraw the same.

¶56

iv) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶57

v) No costs.

¶58

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶59

SD/JUDGE

¶60

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

The Managing Director v. Surendranath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Surendranath

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

Sri Madhava Vs Sri Santhosh Devadiga

Rangamaanar Vs C.R. Prasanna Kumar

Guru Swamy Vs the Branch Manager

Sri. Mohan Kumar Vs Smt. Gowramma

Lakshman G Vs Susheela

Nishan Vs the Divisional Manager