IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT MFA No.6092 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O. MUIVENKATAPPA AGED 58 YEARS OCC: SAND LOADING & UNLOADING R/AT KALLAVENKATAYYANA PALYA LAKKENAHALLI POST, SOLUR HOBLI MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 127 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI SURESH M. LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K S R T C SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 (OWNER OF BUS BEARING REG. NO.KA-06-F-728) ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:16.04.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.3148/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT This appeal by the claimant lays a challenge to the judgment and award dated 16.04.2018 whereby the MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-15) has dismissed the claim petition in MVC.No.3148/2016 on the ground that no case of rash and negligent driving on the part of the offending vehicle is made out. After service of notice, the respondent having entered appearance through its panel counsel, resists the appeal.
2. In a vehicular accident that happened on 14.02.2016 at about 12 noon, the claimant who was riding a motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-41-E-316 suffered grievous injuries allegedly because of instantaneous halting of the offending KSRTC Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-06- F-728 without any signal. The claim petition in MVC No.3148/2016 was resisted by the respondent-KSRTC by filing the objection statement.
3. To prove his case, the claimant got examined himself as PW-1; the Doctor by name Dr. S. Ramachandra who allegedly had treated his injuries got examined as PW-3; this apart, two more persons namely, Sri Mariyappa the custodian of the medical records of the hospital concerned and Sri Lakshmana, an independent eye witness were examined as PW-2 & PW-4; from the side of claimant 17 documents, came to be marked which inter alia comprised of Police Papers, RTO papers and Medical Papers; from the side of respondent-KSRTC, the Charge Sheet came to be marked as Ex.R1, although no person was examined as witness.
4. The MACT after adverting to the pleadings of the parties and after weighing the evidentiary material on record has made the impugned judgment & award. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, the same cannot be faltered because:
a) under Rules 23 of the Road Regulations 1989, a duty is cast on the driver of a motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle to keep and maintain sufficient distance inter se; this rule is promulgated to avoid possible collision in the absence of sufficient distance being maintained; the said rules reads as under:
“23. Distance from vehicles in front:- The driver of a motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall keep at a sufficient distance from that other vehicle to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop.”
There is no evidence to hold that the claimant had maintained sufficient distance, especially when the accident happened allegedly during the broad day light;
b) the claimant who was examined as PW-1 in his cross- examination dated 25.10.2017 has specifically admitted that he did not have a valid and effective driving licence as on the date the accident happened; therefore presumption arises against him;
c) the claimant has not lodged any FIR against the driver of the offending vehicle; on the contrary the management of the respondent-KSRTC has lodged one, pursuant to which, after investigation, the charge sheet has been filed inculpating the claimant himself and the said chargesheet is marked as Ex.R1; and, d) the MACT, being a statutory expert adjudicatory body, having considered all aspects of the matter has come to a right decision, which does not call for interference, in the absence of any arguable errors having been shown by the appellant.
In the above circumstances, the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY