Back
VENKATACHALAIAH, HIREMATH
SHARADA BAI – Appellant
Versus
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS appeal, for enhancement of compensation, by the claimants, arises out of the Judgment and Award dt. 3-9-85, made in MVC 133 of 1983, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Dharwar, granting to the dependants of the deceased-person, a compensation of Rs. 40000/ -. While the appellant-claimants complain of inadequacy of the compensation and seek enhancement, the owner of the motor vehicle, viz, the Karnataka State Road Transport corporation, is aggrieved by the Award even to the extent it goes, on the ground that the finding of the. Tribunal as to actionable-negligence is erroneous and calls for interference in appeal and that, at all events, there ought to have been a mitigation of damages for contributory-negligence on the part or the victim himself.
( 2 ) THE appellant-claimants are the widow and two minor children of a certain Narayana Rao, who died as a result of the injuries sustained in an accident that occurred on 21-12-1982, at 12-30 P. M. in Hubli town, in front of the main-gate of the K. M. C. Hospital. It would appear that the wife of the deceased-person viz, the first-appellant was herself undergoing treatment as an in-patient
None of the cases in the provided list explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. There are no keywords or phrases such as "overruled," "reversed," "disapproved," or "criticized" that suggest a negative treatment of these cases in subsequent jurisprudence. Therefore, based on the information available, no case law from this list can be definitively categorized as bad law.
Several entries (e.g., M. N. RAJAN VS KONNALI KHALID HAJI - 2003 0 Supreme(Kar) 651, SHRIMANTI VS KRISHNA DEVA MADIWA - 2004 0 Supreme(Kar) 335, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Mahima Singh - 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 448, Mahadevaiah VS Managing Partner Durgamba Motors, Bangalore - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 636, United India Insurance Co Ltd. Divisional Office Rama Bhavan Complex Near Nava Bharath Circle Mangalore By Its Manager, Bangalore VS Mary - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 933, Jancy VS Divisional Controller, K S R T C, Mangalore - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 1060, Chalapathi VS Managing Director, Ksrtc, Kolar Division - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 1400, Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd. VS Anacleta Henriquina Ilda Fernandes - 2020 0 Supreme(Bom) 1056) repeatedly reference the case of Sharada Bai v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. (1988 ACJ 490) and discuss principles such as the burden of proving contributory negligence, standard of care, and findings related to contributory negligence. The consistent referencing suggests these cases continue to be considered authoritative or are followed in subsequent decisions.
The references to the case in various contexts (e.g., Rule 23 of Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, and discussions about the burden of proof) imply that the case has been used to clarify legal principles rather than being criticized or overruled. There is no indication that the case has been distinguished in a manner that undermines its authority.
Some entries (e.g., Mahadevaiah VS Managing Partner Durgamba Motors, Bangalore - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 636, United India Insurance Co Ltd. Divisional Office Rama Bhavan Complex Near Nava Bharath Circle Mangalore By Its Manager, Bangalore VS Mary - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 933, Jancy VS Divisional Controller, K S R T C, Mangalore - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 1060, Chalapathi VS Managing Director, Ksrtc, Kolar Division - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 1400) mention the case in passing or as part of factual or procedural discussion, but do not explicitly state whether the case has been overruled, criticized, or otherwise negatively treated.
For example, Mahadevaiah VS Managing Partner Durgamba Motors, Bangalore - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 636 notes the holding regarding burden of proof and the tribunal's finding but does not comment on its current validity or subsequent treatment.
The case of Sharada Bai appears to be a foundational or leading case on contributory negligence in the context of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation cases, and there is no evidence from this list that it has been overruled or discredited.
The case listed as Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd. VS Anacleta Henriquina Ilda Fernandes - 2020 0 Supreme(Bom) 1056 appears to be a duplicate or closely related to the Sharada Bai case (same ACJ 490 reference), but without additional context, its treatment cannot be definitively classified beyond the assumption that it continues to be cited for similar principles.
The references to Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and Himachal Road Transport Corporation in Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd. VS Anacleta Henriquina Ilda Fernandes - 2020 0 Supreme(Bom) 1056 are brief and do not clarify whether these cases have treated the Sharada Bai case positively, negatively, or neutrally.
In summary, the list does not contain explicit indicators of cases being overruled or treated as bad law. The treatment pattern suggests ongoing reliance and citation, indicating these cases remain relevant and authoritative in their subject area.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
