IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1460 OF 2016 (MV) BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K.S.R.T.C.
CENTRAL DIVISION K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE – 27 NOW THROUGH CHIEF LAW OFFICER KSRTC, BANGALORE ... APPELLANT (BY SRI NAGARAJA K., ADV.) AND:
SRI VIJAY KUMAR S/O SRI A.C.RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT MUSTURU VILLAGE CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK & DISTRICT – 562 101 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI H.MUSTABA, ADV.,) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MVC, ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.951/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,70,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T This appeal by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (‘the Corporation’ for brevity) is directed against judgment and award dated 23.11.2015 in M.V.C.No.951/2015 on the file of XIII Additional Small Cause Judge and Member, MACT., Bengaluru, awarding compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to the injured claimant.
2. Sri.Nagaraja.K., learned Advocate for the appellant/Corporation urged following grounds in support of this appeal:
that the injured claimant approached the Tribunal contending inter alia that a bus belonging to the State Road Transport Corporation dashed against the motor cycle, which the injured claimant was riding. According to the claimant, he was proceeding from Chikkaballapura to Gowribidanur and the bus was coming from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner;
that the Corporation contested the claim by pleading that the claimant’s motor cycle was behind the bus. In support of the said contention, the Corporation has adduced the evidence of the driver of the bus Prasad.S./RW-1. The claimant has not cross- examined the driver and hence, the evidence of RW-1 has remained unchallenged;
that Ex.P3 is the sketch prepared by the Police Sub-Inspector, Rural Police Station, Chikkaballapur. The sketch clearly shows that the motor cycle was found on the rear side of the bus;
that the Corporation has cross-examined PW-
1 and specifically suggested in the cross- examination that the claimant was following the bus.
3. With the above grounds, Sri.Nagaraja.K. submitted that the pleading on behalf of the claimant has been denied and PW-1 has been cross-examined on that line by the Corporation. The pleading and evidence on behalf of the Corporation has remained unchallenged. Ex.P3 marked by claimant himself clearly demonstrates that the motor cycle was found on the rear side of the bus. Therefore, the findings recorded in paragraph-12 of the impugned judgment are perverse and therefore, unsustainable in law.
4. Sri.H.Mujtaba, learned Advocate for the respondent/claimant supporting the impugned judgment and award submitted that the IMV report shows that the front bumper of the bus was damaged on the right side. Therefore, it must be presumed that the accident was a head-on collision. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
5. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records.
6. Claimant’s case is that, at the time of accident, bus and motor cycle were moving in the opposite direction. Corporation’s specific case is that the claimant was riding the motor cycle on the rear side of the bus. To substantiate its contention, the Corporation has cross-examined the claimant/PW-1 on this line. The relevant portion of the cross- examination reads as follows:
“The KSRTC bus was coming from the opposite direction.
Q: As per Ex.P3 the spot sketch now shown to you, the KSRTC bus was ahead to you?
A: No, it was coming from opposite direction.
It is not correct to suggest that I was proceeding on the back side of the KSRTC bus and in the process of overtaking it, myself proceeded with high speed in a negligent manner and dashed against the rare portion of the bus and exposed to the accident.”
7. The relevant portion of the examination-in- chief of the driver of the bus/RW-1 reads as follows:
“I submit that, on 18.08.2014 I was the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing Reg. No.KA-40-F-49 and I was manning the route No.12B from Chikkaballapura to Gowribidanur. The said bus was proceeding in said route, driven by me slowly, carefully on the left of the road observing all the traffic rules and regulation. At about 03.45 p.m., when the said bus reached near a Temple (Veera Thimmamma on Chikkaballapura- Gowribidanur road, at that time a rider of Motor Cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-40-U-1011 came form the back side of the said bus in a rash and negligent manner with terrific speed, without observing the traffic rules and without maintaining the minimum distance hit to the rear right side corner bumper of the bus. Due to this impact the rider of Motor Cycle was fell down and injured. Though the rider of Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-40-U-1011 was responsible for this accident and on the humanitarian basis I and the conductor called 108 for Ambulance and sent him to hospital for treatment. But the petitioner has filed a false complaint against me i.e., against this respondent by concocting the documents with the help of police with an intention to extract huge money from the respondent. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed in limine as against this respondent. As such the petitioner was wholly and solely responsible for the alleged accident.”
8. Admittedly, the evidence of driver has not been challenged. Ex.P3 has been marked by the claimant. A careful perusal of the same shows that the motor cycle has fallen on the rear side of the bus.
9. The IMV report, Ex.P4 relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Corporation is also marked by the claimant. The author of the document has not been examined. He was not exposed to cross- examination.
10. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the claimant was riding the motor cycle on the rear side of the bus. Under the said circumstance, no liability can be saddled on the owner of the bus, namely, the State Road Transport Corporation.
11. Resultantly, this appeal merits consideration.
Hence, the following:
ORDER i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) the judgment and award dated 23.11.2015 in M.V.C.No.951/2015 on the file of XIII Additional Small Cause Judge and Member, MACT., Bengaluru, is hereby set aside.
iii) claim petition dismissed.
iv) The amount in deposit shall be refunded to the corporation-appellant.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE KNM/-