The Divisional Controller Vs Smt. H.P.Jayapadma

¶1

1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO 8633 OF 2016(MV-I)

¶5

BETWEEN

¶6

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC., HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN - 573 201 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶7

...APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND

¶10

SMT. H.P.JAYAPADMA W/O LATE JEEVENDRAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.750, HEMAVATHI NAGAR, HASSAN - 573 201

¶11

…RESPONDENT (BY MISS.M.LEKHA JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI D.G.SUNAI AND SRI BHAIRAV.G.V, ADVOCATE)

¶12

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.86/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT AT HASSAN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶13

2

¶14

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 17.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶16

CAV JUDGMENT

¶17

This appeal is by the Corporation calling in question the judgment and award dated 08.08.2016 in MVC No.86/2014 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Hassan on the ground of liability as well as quantum.

¶18

The parties shall be referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal for easy reference.

¶19

A brief outline of facts resulting in filing of appeal are as under:-

¶20

The petition is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV’ Act, for short) is filed by Smt.H.P.Jayapadma, respondent herein for the injuries suffered by her in a road traffic accident that occurred on 15.04.2011 involving the Bus belonging to appellant – Corporation bearing Reg.No.KA-13-F1353 near Railway station, Hassan. It is the case of the petitioner/respondent that when the petitioner was on the

¶21

3

¶22

footboard of the Bus, the driver of the Bus suddenly moved the Bus in a rash and negligent manner, due to which she fell down and the rear wheel of the Bus ran over her right leg causing grievous injuries. She was earlier taken to Government hospital by the driver of the said Bus later, she was admitted to J.S.S. Hospital, Mysuru, for further treatment. She has suffered severe injuries to the right leg as per Ex.P.4 – wound certificate. As per medical records, she was treated in J.S.S. Hospital, from 15.04.2011 to 12.05.2011. She had undergone wound debridement and delayed primary closure on 16.04.2011 and on 22.04.2011 and 26.04.2011, she had undergone wound debridement + VAC dressing. On 02.05.2011, skin grafting and VAC dressing was done. The petitioner has stated that she has incurred a sum of Rs.3,58,364/- and produced bills to that effect. The treated Doctor has been examined as PW2 and he has issued disability certificate stating the condition of the petitioner.

¶23

As per disability certificate at Ex.P.10, PW2 – Doctor has assessed the disability at 59% to her lower limb and 20% to her spine. The Tribunal taking into consideration of injuries suffered

¶24

4

¶25

and treatment underwent, has taken the disability to the wholebody at 25%.

¶26

In response to the notice, the respondent – Corporation appeared and filed statement of objections taking specific contention that the petitioner while in an attempt of boarding moving Bus, fell down and suffered injuries. There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the Bus and denied the income and disability sustained by the petitioner.

¶27

Upon consideration of the pleadings, the Tribunal has

¶28

framed the following three issues:-

¶29

1. “Whether the petitioner proves that on 15-04-2011 at about 11.00 a.m., near Railway station, B.M.Road, Hassan, he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-13-F-1353 by its driver?

¶30

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, at what amount and from whom?

¶31

3. What order?”

¶32

The petitioner in order to substantiate her case,

¶33

examined as PW-1 and produced 9 documents and marked the

¶34

5

¶35

same as Exs.P.1 to P.9 and the Doctor, who treated the petitioner is examined as PW-2 and marked Exs.P.10 to P.15. The Corporation examined its Driver as RW-1 and marked one document as one document as Ex.R.1.

¶36

After consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal has answered issue No.1 in the Affirmative and Issue No.2 partly in the Affirmative and proceeded to award a sum of Rs.6,33,364/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. under various heads and directed the Corporation to deposit the amount within 30 days. It is this judgment and award passed by the Tribunal called in this appeal by the Corporation.

¶37

Heard Sri.D.Vijaykumar learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms.M.Lekha Jain, learned counsel appearing for Sri.D.G.Sunai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶38

Sri.D.Vijaykumar, learned counsel vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider the defence of the Corporation that the petitioner in an attempt to board a moving Bus fell down and sustained injuries without there being any negligence on the part of the driver of the Bus. That apart,

¶39

6

¶40

the sister by name Navarathna, who was alleged to be present along with her on the date of the accident was not examined. As per Ex.P.5 – Spot Mahazar and sketch and Ex.P.6 – Seizure Mahazar, the Bus was moving in front of Hassan Railway Station, at that time, the petitioner attempted to board the Bus and fell down. The Tribunal has not considered the evidence of RW-1, the driver of the vehicle, who has stated the incident that occurred on the date of accident. That apart, the Tribunal has failed to consider Ex.R.1, the judgment of acquittal of the driver in the criminal case by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.766/2011. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant when compared to the injuries suffered and treatment undergone by the respondent. He further contended that the petition was filed on 03.01.2014 i.e., after lapse of 2½ years from the date of accident. The medical expenses awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶41

Per contra , Ms.M.Lekha Jain, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has

¶42

7

¶43

considered the injuries suffered, medical expenses incurred in the presence of medical evidence and the bills produced, the age of the petitioner and the disability certificate issued by the PW-2 – Doctor and has rightly considered the case of the petitioner and awarded proper compensation. The acquittal of the driver in criminal case was no bearing on the claim petition, as the criminal case was ended on benefit of doubt.

¶44

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

¶45

Whether the Tribunal is right in answering the Issue No.1 against the Corporation?

¶46

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the

¶47

case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal calls for any interference?

¶48

My answer to both the points are in favour of the petitioner and against the Corporation for the following:-

¶49

R E A S O N S

¶50

There is no dispute regarding the accident, involvement of the vehicle and injuries suffered. The only dispute according to the Corporation is that, the petitioner has

¶51

8

¶52

sustained injuries while she attempted to board the moving Bus. Whereas, as per the contention of the petitioner, when she was in the foot board, the driver of the Bus in a rash and negligent manner suddenly moved the Bus, which made her to fell down from the Bus and the rear wheel of the Bus ran over her right leg.

¶53

Though learned counsel for the respondent has taken several contentions regarding the manner of accident, however, nothing worthwhile is placed before the Tribunal to substantiate its case that the respondent/petitioner is responsible for the injuries sustained by her. Except the driver of the Bus, no other witnesses are examined to substantiate its defence. The respondent/petitioner has produced several documents including FIR, charge sheet, spot mahazar, spot sketch and MV report. The main limb of contention of the learned counsel for the Corporation is that the criminal case filed against the driver of the Bus has ended in acquittal. The law on the point is no more res integra .

¶54

Mrs.Lekha is right in her submission that it is settled position of law that acquittal has no bearing of the Tribunal to

¶55

9

¶56

consider the case of the injured or in the case of death for awarding compensation. It is also settled position of law that no strict rule of law is made applicable to the motor vehicle cases seeking compensation. The Act being beneficial legislation, the enquiry contemplated under the provisions of the Act are summary in nature. A strict rule ‘proving beyond reasonable doubt’ cannot be made applicable or be accepted.

¶57

In the case on hand, the FIR and charge sheet filed against the driver of the vehicle prima facie shows that the incident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus belonging to the Corporation. A perusal of the judgment shows that the acquittal resulted on the premise that the prosecution has failed to prove the rash and negligent driving of the Bus beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt giving a benefit of doubt.

¶58

In view of the settled position of law, the acquittal in criminal case let alone is not a ground to dislodge the case of the petitioner. The Tribunal after appreciating the entire materials placed by way of oral as well as documentary evidence has rightly come to the conclusion that the driver of the offending

¶59

10

¶60

vehicle belonging to appellant – Corporation drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner causing severe injuries to the respondent/petitioner and proceeded to award compensation on the basis of documentary evidence. This Court finds no infirmity or perversity in the judgment passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Corporation is devoid of merits. In view of the same, this Court proceeds to pass following:-

¶61

ORDER

¶62

i. The appeal filed by the appellant – Corporation calling in question judgment and award dated 08.08.2016 in MVC No.86/2014 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Hassan is hereby dismissed .

¶63

ii. The appellant – Corporation shall deposit entire compensation along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum before the (concerned Tribunal) within a period of six weeks including the statutory deposit and any other deposit in terms of the interim order before this Court.

¶64

iii. The amount in deposit before this Court be transmitted forthwith to the concerned Tribunal.

¶65

11

¶66

iv. Insofar as disbursement of compensation is concerned, the same shall be in terms of the directions of the Tribunal.

¶67

v. No order as to costs.

¶68

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶69

MH/List No.: Sl No.:

The Divisional Controller v. Smt. H.P.Jayapadma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller v. Smt. H.P.Jayapadma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalavati Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Laxmibai Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Rashmi Vs Mr. Venu v

Shivamma Vs Janani Tours & Resorts Pvt. Ltd.

Smt Puttalakshmamma Vs Sri P Kapanaiah