Dismissed

The Divisional Controller v. Sri Krishna

Karnataka HC18 Jul 2023MFA/758/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC appealed a Motor Accidents claim awarding Rs.25,000 to an injured pillion rider. The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's finding of driver negligence and holding the compensation and interest quantum sustainable.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs; the deposited amount is to be transmitted to the tribunal.

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:24944 MFA No. 758 of 2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 758 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, MANDYA DIVISION, 1ST FLOOR, KSRTC BUS STAND, MANDYA - 571 401. (KSRTC BUS BEARING REG. NO. KA- 09/F-5077), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICER, K H RAOD, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI F S DABALI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by T S NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI KRISHNA, S/O LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT: RAMPURA VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(SOLE RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:24944 MFA No. 758 of 2018

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.133/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & MACT, MADDUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.25,000/WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the appellant-KSRTC.

¶21

The present appeal is directed against the Judgment and award in MVC.No.133/2016 which came to be disposed off along with MVC.No.132/2016 by way of common judgment by learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Maddur.

¶22

The petitioner in MVC.No.133/2016 contend that he was of ill-health on 08.01.2016 and therefore, the petitioner, the deceased Sannappa and one Abhishek were going on a motorcycle to the hospital. Since the doctor was not available at Besaganahalli, they proceeded on a motorcycle ridden by the said Abhishek, Sannappa was sitting in the middle and the petitioner-Krishna was sitting in the last on the motor cycle. At about 11.00 p.m., when they reached near the KSRTC bus stand, Maddur Town on Mysuru-Bengaluru Road, a KSRTC bus

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:24944 MFA No. 758 of 2018

¶24

bearing registration No.KA-09/F-5077 came from Mysuru side in rash and negligent manner and without giving any signal, it took a right turn, in the place where there was break in the

¶25

median so as to enter the bus stand. It is contended by observing this sudden act of the KSRTC bus driver, Abhishek applied the brake but the left body of the bus dashed against the motorcycle and caused the accident. All the three persons on the motorcycle fell down and the deceased-Sannappa sustained fatal injuries to head and became unconscious. The petitioner and Abhishek also sustained injuries and it was alleged that the accident was due to the negligent act of the bus driver. The said Sannappa was taken to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. The petitioner herein took treatment at the Government Hospital and later, has filed the present claim petition.

¶26

The petitioner contended that the complaint was lodged by the said Abhishek and after investigation, the Police have filed the charge sheet against the bus driver for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 330, 304A of IPC. The Police also filed the charge sheet against the rider-Abhishek as well as the owner of the motorcycle contending that they had

¶27

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:24944 MFA No. 758 of 2018

¶28

violated the provisions of the Motor vehicles Acts and Rules by allowing the triple riding and use of the motorcycle without any insurance policy. The petitioner contended before the Tribunal that he has sustained injuries to the chest, face and minor abrasions and therefore, he is entitled for the compensation.

¶29

On issuance of notice, the respondent-KSRTC appeared before the Tribunal and filed objections contending that the accident was due to the sole negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and he should have taken adequate caution and he could have seen the bus entering the gates of the bus stand. It was contended that compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable and there was no such negligence on the part of the bus driver and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶30

On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues and common evidence was led in MVC.No.132/2016 and MVC.No.133/2016. The petitioner herein was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to 14 were marked. The driver of the bus was examined as RW.1 and another official of the KSRTC was examined as RW.2 and Exs.R1 and 2 were

¶31

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:24944 MFA No. 758 of 2018

¶32

marked in evidence. After hearing the both the sides, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner as compensation and fastened the liability on the respondentKSRTC.

¶33

Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the

¶34

respondent-KSRTC is before this Court in appeal.

¶35

On issuance of notice, the claimants did not appear despite service of notice. The Tribunal records have been secured.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the bus was entering the bus stand at Maddur and the bus driver had taken all the precautions while taking the right turn. It is submitted that the rider of the motorcycle was in high speed and he could not control his vehicle and had not taken sufficient precautions and as such, the negligence is attributable to the petitioner. He also contends that the quantum of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs.25,000/- is highly exorbitant and in fact, the petitioner has sustained minor injuries.

¶37

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:24944 MFA No. 758 of 2018

¶38

A careful perusal of the Police papers which have been produced before the Tribunal show that the accident has occurred on Bengaluru-Mysuru highway which has four lanes at the place of the accident. Obviously, the bus was coming from Mysuru towards Bengaluru and he had to take a right turn to enter into the bus stand by crossing the lane which was leading from Bengaluru to Mysuru. It is also an admitted fact that the motorcycle was moving towards Mysuru. It is evident from the sketch and the Police papers that the bus driver had not seen that the motorcycle which was coming on his right lane from the opposite direction before he ventured to enter the gates of the bus stand.

¶39

It is evident that the Motor Vehicle Rules contemplate that a person who is driving a vehicle has to give way for the vehicles which are coming on his right side. Obviously, the motorcycle was coming on the right lane of the bus driver from the opposite direction and he would have very well seen the motorcycle coming from the opposite direction. Even then, he ventured to enter the right lane and cross the same to enter the bus stand. What was not anticipated by the bus driver is the speed of the motorcycle. There was no need

¶40

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:24944 MFA No. 758 of 2018

¶41

for the motorcycle rider i.e., the petitioner to anticipate that the bus driver would take right turn and enter into the bus stand. It has come in the investigation papers that the bus driver had not shown any indication to enter in the right lane. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that there was negligence on the part of the Bus driver. However the rider of the motorcycle as well as the owner have been charge sheeted by the Police for the offences punishable under the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶42

It is obvious that no negligence is attributed to the rider of the motorcycle. The circumstances which are found from the evidence in form of Police papers as well as the testimony of PW.1 also show that there was no such negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. Indeed he was riding the motorcycle with two persons as pillion riders. In the complaint also it is mentioned that the petitioner was unwell and he was being taken to the hospital. Under these circumstances, sufficient reasons has been shown by the complainant that it was an emergency and therefore, they were going to the hospital. It is relevant to note that the violation of the Motor Vehicle Rules, to certain extent are relaxable when a person is being shifted to the hospital under an emergency.

¶43

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:24944 MFA No. 758 of 2018

¶44

Therefore, though the allegation for the offence under Sections 279, 337 of IPC is against the rider of the motorcycle also, it is not possible to hold that there was any contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. The petitioner herein is being one of the pillion rider, as owner of the motorcycle, cannot maintain a petition against his own insurer. Under these circumstances, so also the non-existence of the policy for the motorcycle cannot be a reason to hold that there was negligence on his part. Evidently, the negligence was on the part of the bus driver and therefore, no fault can be found in respect of finding of the Tribunal that the bus driver was negligent. The non-existence of a insurance policy for the motorcycle and driving the same with two pillion riders cannot per -se be construed to be a negligence on the part of the rider. Hence, no interference is required in respect of the conclusion reached by the Tribunal concerning the liability.

¶45

So far as the quantum of the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal observes in para 24 of the impugned judgment that the petitioner had sustained abrasion on the chest and also chin and as per the Wound Certificate and MLC register at Ex.P7, there was abrasion on the medial side of the

¶46

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:24944 MFA No. 758 of 2018

¶47

right leg. Considering these injuries, the Tribunal has awarded a global compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner. It is relevant to note that though the reasons for awarding the sum of Rs.25,000/- are not spelt out by the Tribunal, it has to be observed that the petitioner was suffering from some aliment and therefore, he was going to the hospital. While going to the hospital, he met with the accident and suffered the above injuries. So also he had to witness the death of one of his companion i.e., Sannappa who died in the accident. This trauma that could have been faced by the petitioner has been considered by the Tribunal but is has not spelt out the same while assessing the compensation. Hence, the award of global compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner cannot be interfered with. In the result, the appeal is devoid of any merits.

¶48

Lastly the learned counsel for appellant submits that the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% is on the higher side.

¶49

In a catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that 9% interest is sustainable when at the relevant

¶50

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:24944 MFA No. 758 of 2018

¶51

point of time the rate of interest awarded by the bank was to the extent of 9%. It may be true that subsequently the rate of interest had come down that does not mean that when the impugned judgment was passed by the Tribunal. Such interest of 9% was considered by the Tribunal and awarded the same. Therefore, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal in any manner. As such, the appeal fails. Hence, the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

The appeal is dismissed.

¶54

No order as to costs.

¶55

The amount in deposit before this Court is ordered to be transmitted to the tribunal.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

NR/-

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 94

The Divisional Controller v. Sri Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller v. Sri Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Mangamma Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited

The Managing Director B.M.T.C. Vs Sri B v Nithinkumar

Sri. S. Ravindrakumar Vs Sri. K. Parameshwara Reddy

Mr Mohammad B Vs Mr Abdul Faruq

The Managing Director Vs Smt Sudha K

The Division Controller Ksrtc Vs Sonnappa