IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A.No.2915/2015 C/W M.F.A.No.2916/2015(MV) IN M.F.A.No.2915/2015 BETWEEN:
CHANNABASAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS COOLIE, R/O AVARAGERE P BASAVANA GOWDA LAYOUT DAVANAGERE – 577 003.
(BY SRI SIDDESWARA N K, ADVOCATE) AND:
..APPELLANT 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER/CONTROLLER OWNER OF KSRTC BUS BEARING No.KA-01/F-7955, KSRTC DIVISION 5TH STAGE, BANGALORE.
PIN 560 027.
2. THE CHAIRMAN INTERNAL INSURANCE FUND KSRTC, SARIGE BHAVAN BANGALORE – 560 027.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER KSRTC, DAVANAGERE DIVISION DAVANAGERE – 577 002.
(BY SRI D VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) ..RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.09.2014 PASSED IN MVC No.346/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND VII MACT, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.No.2916/2015 BETWEEN:
SMT.GEETHA @ GEETHAMMA CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS COOLIE, R/O AVARAGERE P BASAVANA GOWDA LAYOUT DAVANAGERE – 577 003.
(BY SRI SIDDESWARA N K, ADVOCATE) AND:
..APPELLANT 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER/CONTROLLER OWNER OF KSRTC BUS BEARING No.KA-01/F-7955, KSRTC DIVISION, 5TH STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 027.
2. THE CHAIRMAN INTERNAL INSURANCE FUND KSRTC, SARIGE BHAVAN BANGALORE – 560 027.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER KSRTC, DAVANAGERE DIVISION DAVANAGERE – 577 001.
(BY SRI D VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) ..RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.09.2014 PASSED IN MVC No.347/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND VII MACT, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though the appeals are listed for `Admission’, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, appeals are taken up for final disposal.
2. These appeals are directed against the Judgment and award dated 20.09.2014 passed in MVC Nos.347/2013 and 346/2013 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and VII MACT, Davanagere.
3. In order to avoid confusion and overlappings, the parties are hereinafter referred with reference to their status and rankings as it stood before the Tribunal.
4. Proceedings before the Tribunal came to be initiated because of the accident on 22.11.2012 at about 8.40 A.M. when the petitioners were traveling on TVS-XL bearing No.KA-17/ED-2452 from Davanagere to Godabanahal Village wherein the rider was the husband-petitioner in MVC No.346/2013 and petitioner (wife) in MVC No.347/2013 is the pillion rider.
5. The bus which was going ahead of the petitioners bearing registration No.KA-01-F-7955 suddenly got slow and abruptly turned towards its right in a rash and negligent manner because of which TVS-XL on which the spouses were traveling hit back portion of said bus, due to the impact, the petitioners sustained serious injuries and hence, they sought for compensation.
6. Learned Member was accommodated with the oral evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and from the side of the petitioners being claimants/injured produced and got marked Exhibits P-1 to P-15 and RW-1- the driver was examined from the side of the respondent. Learned Member adjudicated the matter mainly by emphasizing on the absence of negligence and finds the bus which was moving ahead of the affected vehicle took turn solely and petitioners due to negligence dashed against the left side portion of the bus. As such the accident was authored by the petitioners. In the result declined to grant compensation and dismissed the petitions.
7. Learned counsel for claimants Sri N K Siddeswara would submit that the learned Member has given emphasis on assumptions and presumptions and proceeded to adjudicate the matter in a concluded manner and same is also manifest from the fact that it has not made the assessment of compensation despite the fact whether respondent-KSRTC is liable or otherwise.
8. Learned counsel for KSRTC Sri Vijaya Kumar would submit that the accident occurred obviously due to negligence of the rider. Learned counsel would further stress that the place of accident is within the town and crowded area of Anagodu Village bus stop. Such being the case bus cannot be expected to have been driven in a rash and negligent manner. Further complaint reflects that the bus was slow in moving at the time of accident. Under the said circumstances the claimants in both the cases are not entitled for compensation.
9. Negligence is breach of legal duty to take care of oneself and others. The rash and negligent need not be high velocity of the offending vehicle and it may occur whenever a vehicle is operated in an abnormal manner contrary to safety indications. There is a normal rule that each and every act official, contractual, statutory and the connected has to be performed exactly in accordance with the norms prescribed for it. The concept of negligence being question of fact has to be considered on the basis of sequence of events. Prima facie case was registered against the driver of KSRTC bus in Crime No.299/2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. Thus, the negligence may be active or passive, objective or subjective.
10. In the circumstances, in the light of materials available, learned Member should have considered the materials before concluding on negligence. I find that learned Member has gone with a presumption placing negligence on the rider which does not appear to be proper. Further not arriving at the quantum of compensation also hits.
11. The injuries sustained by the petitioners as per wound certificate –Exhibit P-8 are as under: Channabasappa in MVC No.346/2013– 1. Injuries swelling over right parietal region 2x2 cm 2. Cut lacerated wound over the mandible right side 1/2x1 cm 3. Chest and ankle left side 4. Fracture of 3rd and 6th ribs left side.
Geetha @ Geethamma in MVC No.347/2013 1. Abrasion over the left knee 1/4x1/2 2. Abrasion over the nose 1/4x1/2 3. Fracture of right nasal bone 12. In the circumstances, I find that the appeals are of the year 2015 and claim petition is of the year 2013, instead of ordering for retrial in respect of both the cases which are filed because of injuries, it may be just and proper to consider the concept of global compensation and an amount of Rs.40,000/- in MVC No.347/2013 and Rs.75,000/- in MVC No.346/2013 appears to be just and proper.
Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER 1. MFA No.2915/2015 and MFA No.2916/2015 are partly allowed.
2. Judgment and award dated 20.09.2014 passed in MVC Nos.347/2013 and 346/2013 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and VII MACT, Davanagere is set aside and claim petitions are partly allowed by granting global compensation of Rs.40,000/- in MVC No.347/2013 and Rs.75,000/- in MVC No.346/2013 with interest @ 6% p.a. effective from the date of filing of the appeal.
3. KSRTC is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with interest within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE SBN