Allowed

The Managing Director v. Sri S B Prakash

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2023MFA/5093/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in two motor accidents cases allowed appeals filed by KSRTC, setting aside the Tribunal's judgment and award on compensation. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to consider the impleading application for the lorry's owner and insurer and to allow all parties to lead evidence regarding rash and negligence.

What did the court decide?

The appeals were allowed. The Tribunal's judgment and award were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to consider the impleading application and allow proof on negligence by all parties.

The Managing Director Vs Sri S B Prakash — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 5093 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5094 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

M.F.A. NO. 5093 OF 2015 (MV-D)

¶8

C/W.

¶9

M.F.A. NO. 5094 OF 2015 (MV-D)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

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

¶12

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K.S.R.T.C., DOUBLE ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-27. NOW THROUGH CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NWKRTC, BANGALORE

¶13

…APPELLANT (common in both the cases)

¶14

(BY SRI. NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI. S. B. PRAKASH S/O. BASAVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. 21, 1ST 'A' CROSS, OPP. S.K.F. VIDYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 099.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(common in both the cases)

¶19

(BY SRI. B. KESHAVA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶20

¶21

MFA No. 5093 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5094 of 2015

¶22

IN MFA NO.5093/2015:

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.02.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.3937/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, BENGALURU,(SCCH-1) AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.9,79,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE REALIZATION FROM THE RESPONDENT.

¶24

IN MFA NO.5094/2015:

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.02.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.3936/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, BENGALURU(SCCH-1) AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.9, 30, 975/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE REALIZATION FROM THE RESPONDENT.

¶26

THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

These appeals are filed by the KSRTC challenging the

¶29

negligence as well as the quantum of compensation.

¶30

The brief facts of the case are that on 12.05.2013 at about 4.00 a.m., the deceased persons - Girijamma and L.P.Lohith were travelling in NWKRTC bus

¶31

¶32

MFA No. 5093 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5094 of 2015

¶33

bearing No.KA-31/F-1221 from Chitradurga to Bangalore, when they reached near Billanakote, the driver of the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry bearing No.KA-02/D-1219 which was parked on the left side of the road. Due to the impact, the deceased persons succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the claimant being the husband of Smt. Girijamma and father of L.P.Lohith, has filed claim petition seeking compensation.

¶34

Heard the arguments on I.A.No.2/2015 and I.A.No.3/2015 in both the cases filed for impleading the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing No.KA-02/D-1219 and perused the records.

¶35

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted

¶36

that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the NWKRTC bus and lorry but the Tribunal had only fastened the liability on the KSRTC bus.

¶37

¶38

MFA No. 5093 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5094 of 2015

¶39

The claimant has not impleaded the owner and insurer of the lorry but in fact the driver of the lorry was also rash and negligent in causing the accident. Therefore, it is submitted that even though the application was filed before the Tribunal for impleading the owner and insurer of the lorry, the Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the said application. Therefore, it is submitted that now in the appeal, one of the grounds raised is that the rejection of the application for impleading is not correct. Therefore, prays to allow I.A.No.2/2015 filed for impleading the owner and insurer of the lorry.

¶40

On the other hand, learned counsel for the proposed respondent, who is sought to be impleaded by the appellant argued that before the Tribunal the application filed for impleading is dismissed and that order is not challenged and therefore, the order on impleading application has attained finality. Now the said application

¶41

¶42

MFA No. 5093 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5094 of 2015

¶43

cannot be allowed. Therefore, prays for dismissal of the application.

¶44

Before the Tribunal, the claimant has not impleaded the owner and insurer of the lorry. Before the Tribunal, the appellant-KSRTC had filed an application for impleading the owner and insurer of the lorry, but the Tribunal had rejected the same. Therefore, when the proportion of rash and negligence is alleged on the part of the driver of the lorry, whether the driver of the lorry was rash and negligent or not is to be adjudicated. Even if this application is allowed in these appeals then the consideration of the rash and negligent aspect on the part of the driver of the lorry is to be considered but giving an opportunity to the owner and insurer of the lorry to lead evidence on the rash and negligent aspect is required. Therefore, in order to give an opportunity to the owner and insurer of the lorry negating the rash and negligence

¶45

¶46

MFA No. 5093 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5094 of 2015

¶47

on the part of the driver of the lorry, the appeal is liable to

¶48

be remanded to the Tribunal.

¶49

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on

¶50

the merits of the matter, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal. The owner and insurer of the lorry shall be impleaded before the Tribunal with an appropriate application and the tribunal shall give an opportunity to the owner, insurer and KSRTC to lead their evidence on rash and negligent aspect.

¶51

In this regard, I directed to alter/modify the issue regarding rash and negligent aspect putting the burden on all the parties and their respective contentions regarding rash and negligent aspect. All contentions on merits are left open. All the parties are reserved liberty to adduce further evidence, if they are so advised. Hence, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal are hereby set-aside. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶52

¶53

MFA No. 5093 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5094 of 2015

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i. The appeals are allowed .

¶56

ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC Nos.3936/2013 and 3937/2013 are hereby set-aside.

¶57

iii. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

¶58

iv. Liberty is reserved to the parties to lead oral or documentary evidence or both, if they are so advised.

¶59

v. All the contentions are left open.

¶60

vi. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall invest the same in any nationalized bank in the form of fixed deposit.

¶61

vii. Liberty is reserved to the claimant to withdraw the deposited amount. .

¶62

¶63

MFA No. 5093 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 5094 of 2015

¶64

viii. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 20.02.2023 , without expecting notice from the Tribunal.

¶65

ix. The Tribunal shall decide the case and dispose of the matter within a period of four months from 20.03.2023, in accordance with law.

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

The Managing Director v. Sri S B Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Sri S B Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amzad Pasha @ Amzad Baig Vs Mohammed Ghouse

Syed Bakshi Vs Syed Aslam Pasha

Sir Nagappa Doddamani Vs Sri M S Balagangadhar

Smt Shwetha Vs Hanumegowda

Smt Renuka Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Mr. Anil Kumar Vs Mr. Krishnaraj. K. N.