IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.5905/2013 [MV] A/W M.F.A.No.5906/2013 [MV] M.F.A.No.5905/2013 BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (VPM.) LTD., THIRUVANNAMALAI REGION THIRUVANNAMALI 606 601 TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI.BOPANNA B, ADV.) AND:
1. SRI GUNASHEKARAN S/O LATE SUBRAMANYAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 2. SRI KARTHIKEYAN S/O GUNASHEKARAN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 3. SMT. RAJALAKSHMI D/O GUNASHEKARAN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.483 8TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN MICO LAYOUT BTM 2ND STAGE BENGALURU- 560076.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GAYATHRI E P, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.01.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1613/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 10TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 35TH ACMM, MACT-16, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.4,10,072/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
M.F.A.No.5906/2013 BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (VPM.) LTD., THIRUVANNAMALAI REGION THIRUVANNAMALI- 606 601 TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.BOPANNA B, ADV.) AND:
SRI GUNASHEKARAN S/O LATE SUBRAMANYAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.483 8TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN MICO LAYOUT BTM 2ND STAGE BENGALURU- 560076.
(BY SMT. GAYATHRI E P, ADV.) ... RESPONDENT THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.01.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1614/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE X ASCJ & XXXV ACMM, MACT-16, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,14,537/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE REALIZATION.
THESE M.F.A.s COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T At the request of learned counsel for the parties in MFA No.5905/2013 and 5906/2013, both the appeals are taken up together for disposal, as the same arises out of the common judgment and award dated 21.01.2014 in MVC No.1613/2011 and MVC No.1614/2011.
2. The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., (for short ‘the TNSRTC’) is in appeal aggrieved by the saddling of entire liability on it in pursuance of the common judgment and award dated 21.01.2014 in MVC Nos.1613 and 1614/2011 on the file of MACT-16, Bangalore.
3. The claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of one Amudhavalli and for the injuries sustained by the other claimant. It is stated that on 08.01.2011, when the deceased and the claimant Sri Gunashekaran were traveling in Maruthi Car bearing Reg.No.KA-05-MC-4254 from Bangalore towards Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu, on Krishnagiri Hosur (NH-7) Road, a TNSRTC Bus bearing Reg. No.TN- 25-N-0047 driven in a rash and negligent manner came from the side of Sharavana Bhavana Hotel to proceed to Krishnagiri-Hosur (NH-7) Road and took a sudden ‘U’ turn without stopping the vehicle, due to which the driver of the bus lost control and dashed to the Maruthi Car. Immediately the deceased as well as the husband Gunashekaran were shifted to Krishnagiri Government Hospital, Tamil Nadu and thereafter to Bharathi Nursing Home, Bangalore for treatment.
4. On issuance of summons, the respondent – Corporation appeared before the Tribunal and filed its written statement denying the petition averments. Further contended that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and excessive. It is also stated that the accident took place wholly due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Maruthi Car bearing Reg.No.KA-05-MC-4254. Claimant - Sri.Gunashekar in MVC No.1614/2011 examined himself as PW.1 and also examined PW.2 – the Doctor apart from marking Exs.P1 to P26. The respondent – Corporation examined RW.1 – the driver of the bus. The Tribunal considering the material placed on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.4,10,072/- in MVC No.1613/2011 and Rs.5,14,537/- in MVC No.1614 on the following heads respectively:-
Compensation towards loss of dependency Rs. 3,60,072-00 Compensation towards loss of love and affection Rs. 15,000-00 Compensation towards funeral expenses Rs. 10,000-00 Compensation towards loss of estate Rs. 10,000-00 Compensation towards transportation of dead body Rs. 5,000-00 Total Rs. 4,10,072-00 Compensation towards pain and suffering. Rs. 25,000-00 Compensation towards loss of amenities in life.
Compensation towards permanent disability.
Rs. 25,000-00 Rs. 05,000-00 Compensation towards disfigurement. Rs. 05,000-00 Compensation towards loss of 4 months leave.
Rs. 1,48,000-00 Compensation towards medical expenses. Rs. 2,90,537-00 Compensation towards attendant charges, food and nourishment and conveyance expenses.
Rs. 16,000-00 Total Rs. 5,14,537-00 Aggrieved by the saddling of entire liability on the insurer and not saddling liability on the part of the driver of the car on the ground of contributory negligence, the respondent – Corporation is before this Court in this appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents in both the appeals. Perused the entire material on record including the lower court records.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation would submit that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Maruthi Car. It is his submission that the driver of the bus bearing No.TN-25- N-0047 was driving the bus in a moderate speed and was taking ‘U’ turn by following the traffic rules and giving signal. But the driver of the car was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. It is his further submission that the Corporation to prove that the accident had occurred wholly due to the negligence of the driver of the car examined RW.1, the driver of the bus. RW.1 in his evidence has stated that while he was taking ‘U’ turn Maruthi Car came in a rash, negligent manner without observing traffic rules and dashed on the right side middle portion of the bus. Therefore, he submits that the Tribunal ought to have considered the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruthi Car.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would submit that the Tribunal has rightly saddled the liability on the Corporation. The driver of the car was not negligent, but solely due to the negligent driving by the driver of the bus, the accident occurred. The driver of the bus suddenly took ‘U’ turn without any signal and without following any traffic rules, which caused the accident.
8. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the lower court records, the only point that arise for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening the entire liability on the respondent – Corporation. The answer to the said point is in the affirmative for the following reasons :-
The accident occurred on 8.01.2011 involving the Maruthi Car bearing Reg.No.KA-05-MC-4254 and the TNSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.TN-25-N-0047 and the death of one Amudavalli and the accidental injuries sustained by Gunashekaran are not in dispute in this appeal. The Corporation is in appeal on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to consider the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car.
9. The respondent – Corporation filed its statement and contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the Maruthi Car bearing Reg.No.KA-05-MC-4254 and the driver of the bus is in no way responsible for the accident, but the respondent – Corporation failed to substantiate the said contention. In support of its contention the respondent – Corporation examined RW.1 – the driver of the bus, but no other independent witness was examined to establish that the accident had occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the car. RW.1 in his evidence stated that he started the bus slowly and came to the main road and after giving signal took ‘U’ turn, at that time, the Maruthi Car came from Bangalore towards Krishnagiri side without observing traffic rules and hit the bus on right side middle portion near the diesel tank and caused the accident. But in the cross- examination he has stated that he has not filed counter complaint about the accident. Further he admits in the cross-examination that he had stopped the bus in the place of accident at the request of passenger, it was not a bus stop. Further RW.1 volunteers to state that in case of urgency and at the request of the passengers, the bus could be stopped in places other than the bus stop. The respondent – Corporation cross-examined PW.1 – Gunashekar, who was driving the Car. The insurer in its cross-examination of PW.1 except suggesting that the accident had occurred solely due to the negligent driving by PW.1, nothing worth is elicited. It is not even suggested with regard to the occurrence of the accident. In the absence of any cross-examination with regard to occurrence of accident due to the negligent driving by the driver of the Car and failure to examine any independent witness, the Tribunal rightly saddled the liability on the respondent – Corporation. Moreover, it is to be noticed here itself that the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the bus – RW.1. The charge sheet would indicate that the driver of the bus was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Car driven by PW.1.
10. Looking to the material placed on record the Tribunal is justified in fastening the entire liability on the respondent – Corporation. No ground is made out. The impugned judgment and award is neither perverse nor erroneous, so as to warrant interference. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT:bms