Dismissed¶¶60

The Divisional Controller , Ksrtc, v. Ningappa S/O Veerabhadrappa

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 173(1)

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2025MFA/22121/2013

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC appeal under Section 173(1) MV Act against MACT-II Ballari award in MVC No.1420/2011; claimant injured while boarding KSRTC bus KA-34/F-507 at Ballary old bus stand on 20.05.2010; defence of claimant's intoxication rejected as wound certificate Ex.P4 made no mention of alcohol and doctor found no reference to intoxication; charge sheet against bus driver unchallenged by KSRTC; compensation of Rs.5,09,000 with 8% p.a. interest confirmed; appeal dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; the judgment and award dated 07.01.2013 in MVC No.1420/2011 by MACT-II, Bellary, confirmed; Tribunal records and amount in deposit, if any, to be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned forthwith; no order as to costs. ¶¶60

The Divisional Controller , Ksrtc, Vs Ningappa S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant-KSRTC has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal?

¶¶48

Court's answer

Point No.(i) — whether the appellant-KSRTC made out grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and award — is answered in the negative.

¶¶56

Ratio / Principle

No error is found in the impugned judgment; the Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, rightly passed the judgment and award.

¶¶55

Key takeaways

The wound certificate issued by the Medical Officer, VIMS Hospital, Ballary (marked as Ex.P4) does not disclose that the respondent had consumed alcohol, and there is no reference that he was under the influence of alcohol; the intoxication defence therefore fails.ratio¶¶55
The charge sheet was filed against the driver of the bus, and the appellant-KSRTC did not challenge the charge sheet filed against the driver.ratio¶¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173(1) — Miscellaneous First Appeal by KSRTC against award of Rs.5,09,000/- with 8% interest by MACT-II, Ballari — accident of 20.05.2010 at Ballary old bus stand where the driver of KSRTC bus Reg.No.KA-34/F-507 moved the bus suddenly while the claimant was boarding, causing him to fall and sustain grievous injuries — defence that the claimant was fully drunk and negligent — wound certificate (Ex.P4) issued by Medical Officer, VIMS Hospital, Ballary silent on consumption of alcohol and no reference to claimant being under its influence — charge sheet against the bus driver not challenged by KSRTC — finding of rash and negligent driving upheld, point answered in negative — appeal dismissed and award confirmed; Tribunal records and amount in deposit directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal; no order as to costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9632 MFA No. 22121 of 2013

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22121 OF 2013 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, 1^ST DEPOT, BALLARI, PRESENTLY REP BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE, SARAGE SADAN, GULBARGA.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SMT. VAISHALI KALADAGI, ADV)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally
signed by
VINAYAKA
VINAYAKA B V
B V Date:
2025.08.11
16:04:26
+0530

¶12

SRI. V. NINGAPPA S/O VEERABHADRAPPA AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. FARM QUARTERS, LAKSHMINAGAR CAMP, SOMASAMUDRA POST, TQ. & DIST: BALLARI.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. B.C JNANAYYASWAMI, ADV)

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC. 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1420/2011 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, MACT-II, BALLARI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.5,09,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶16

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9632 MFA No. 22121 of 2013

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

¶22

This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant-KSRTC, challenging the judgment and award dated 07.01.2013 passed in MVC No.1420/2011 by the MACT-II, Bellary.

¶23

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:

¶24

That on 20.05.2010, at about 7.30 p.m., when

¶25

the respondent herein was standing at Ballary old bus stand, while entering into the bus stand, the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-34/F-507 from the front door, all of a sudden, the driver of the bus, without considering the entry of the respondent herein into the bus door, started the said bus and moved with great speed in a rash and negligent manner, resulting the respondent herein fell and sustained grievous injuries. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the bus in crime No.68/2010. The

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9632 MFA No. 22121 of 2013

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

respondent herein who has sustained grievous injuries, has spent a huge amount towards the treatment. Hence, the respondent herein filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.

¶29

The appellant herein filed a written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the respondent herein, as he was fully drunk. When the bus was moving slowly and cautiously, and the door was properly closed by the conductor, the respondent herein was knocking on the bus from the backside. When the driver and the conductor heard the sound, they opened the door of the bus, and they saw that the respondent herein fell. Thereafter, he was shifted to the VIMS, Hospital, Ballary. It is contended that the accident has taken place due to the negligence of the respondent herein, as he was fully drunken. The

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9632 MFA No. 22121 of 2013

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

compensation claimed is on the higher side, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition.

¶33

The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

¶34

The respondent herein to substantiate his case, examined himself as P.W.1, one witness, i.e., the doctor was examined as P.W.2, and marked 81 documents as Exs.P1 to P81. On the other hand, the respondents examined one witness as R.W.1 and no documents were marked.

¶35

The Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.5,09,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit in bank. It is also held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimant with interest and costs. The appellant-KSRTC, aggrieved by the judgment

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9632 MFA No. 22121 of 2013

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

and award passed in MVC No.1420/2011, has filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal.

¶39

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

¶40

the appellant-KSRTC, and the learned counsel for the respondent-claimant.

¶41

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

¶42

the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the respondent-claimant. She submits that the respondent was in an intoxicated condition and during the movement of the bus, he was trying to board the bus, and in that process, he fell and sustained injuries. There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. She submits that the Tribunal has not adequately appreciated the evidence on record and committed an error in fastening the liability on the part of the appellant-KSRTC. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the appeal.

¶43

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondentclaimant supports the impugned judgment and award. It is

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9632 MFA No. 22121 of 2013

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

contended that in the wound certificate, there is no mention regarding the consumption of alcohol by the respondent/claimant. He submits that the contention of the appellant does not hold water. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶47

Perused the records, and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. The point, that would arise for my consideration is as follows:

¶48

i) Whether the appellant-KSRTC has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal?

¶49

Reg.Point No.(i):

¶50

There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of

¶51

the accident, and also the respondent having sustained injuries in the road traffic accident. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of

¶52

the driver of the bus, the respondent has produced the charge sheet marked as Ex.P5. The appellant-KSRTC has

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9632 MFA No. 22121 of 2013

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

taken a defence that the respondent had consumed alcohol while boarding the bus, and in that process, he fell and sustained injuries. Immediately after the accident, the respondent herein was shifted to the hospital. The Medical Officer, VIMS Hospital, Ballary, has issued the wound certificate, marked as Ex.P4, and it does not disclose that the respondent herein had consumed the alcohol. The doctor examined the respondent and there is no reference that he was under the influence of alcohol. The charge sheet was filed against the driver of the bus, and the appellant-KSRTC did not challenge the charge sheet filed against the driver of the bus. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award.

¶56

I do not find any error in the impugned judgment. In view of the above discussion, I answer point No.(i) in the negative, and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶57