The court established that the driver and conductor of a public transport vehicle have a legal duty to ensure passenger safety and to provide medical assistance in the event of an accident, and failure to do so constitutes negligence, leading to liability for compensation.

JUDGMENT

BASAVARAJA, J. - The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and award dtd. 11/9/2020 passed in M.V.C.No.290/2017by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge & 1st Addl. MACT., Karwar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal').

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the rank before the Tribunal.

3. The factual scenario of the case is as follows: On January 31, 2017, the deceased, Bireshwar Hiren Mandal, who was the husband of petitioner No.1 and the father of petitioner No.2, was a passenger aboard NWKRTC bus with registration number KA-31/F-1429, traveling from Majali to Karwar and about 7:00 p.m., the bus reached the vicinity of the Deputy Commissioner's office in Karwar, the deceased was in the process of disembarking from the bus. At this critical moment, the driver of the bus respondent No.2, abruptly initiated the movement of the bus. The sudden motion of the bus led the deceased, who was on the last step, to lose his balance and consequently fall onto the step and then onto the road. This unfortunate incident resulted in severe injuries to his head and body. Immediately, the injured was shifted to Karwar's Civil Hospital. The medical professionals at the Civil Hospital recommended that he be transferred for advanced treatment in Goa. Subsequently, he was transported to Bambolim Hospital in Goa, where he received inpatient care. His condition was critical, and he was placed in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) for a duration of five days. The petitioners bore a financial burden of over Rs.2, 35, 000.00 for medical and associated expenses. Tragically, despite their efforts and the medical care provided, the deceased succumbed to his injuries on 4/2/2017, while still at the hospital.

4. Additionally, it is important to note that the deceased was a proficient and skilled worker, serving as a Centering Mestri or construction artist under the employment of Revanasiddappa B. Davanagere. It's worth highlighting that the deceased had been recruited from West Bengal due to his expertise in construction-related tasks. His monthly remuneration amounted to Rs.35, 000.00. Significantly, he held the position of being the sole breadwinner for the petitioners' family. Their financial sustenance was entirely reliant on his earnings. Regrettably, with his untimely demise, the petitioners were abruptly stripped of their only source of financial support. The emotional impact is profound as well, as both petitioners have suffered irreplaceable loss of the deceased's love and companionship. In light of these compelling circumstances, the petitioners earnestly seek the approval of the claim petition, with due consideration given to the aforementioned grounds.

5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal and filed their written statement. The substance of the written statement of respondent No.1 is that the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-31/F-1429 (Mini Bus) was moving from Majali towards Karwar and the bus was stopped at D.C. Office, Karwar and in that stop, about 10 passengers got down (alighted) from the bus, but the victim while attempting to alight from the bus, got slipped at the door step and fell down on the road and was hit to the road side stone and he got injuries on his head. The bus was having pneumatic door system and as such, the bus was stopped while the victim was getting down. Therefore, the driver of the bus is not liable for the accident and is not liable to pay any compensation. On all these grounds sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. The substance of written statement of respondent No.2 is that, respondent No.2 is not responsible for this accident. The accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent act on the part of the deceased. Respondent No.2 has not contributed any rash and negligent act towards the accident. Respondent No.2 was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and the bus was insured with respondent No.1. He