Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1940
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
UMESH M.ADIGA, J.
Sanna Balappa Shetty K. S/o Venkobashetty K. – Appellant
Versus
The Managing Director, BMTC – Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal Nos. 3620, 5313 of 2020
Decided On : 12-12-2025
For the Appellant : A.K. Bhat,
For the Respondent: D. Vijaya Kumar
The driver's negligence led to the claimant's injuries, and claims of false implication were unsupported, resulting in the award of enhanced compensation.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act - Section 133 - Negligence - In this case, the claimant was injured while attempting to board a public bus, purportedly due to the negligent driving by the bus driver, leading to injuries and permanent disability. The claimant was initially denied proper compensation, with the respondent contending the case was false. The Tribunal awarded a certain amount, which the claimant appealed for enhancement. (Paras 6, 25, 27)
(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - The claimant provided medical records and eyewitness accounts evidencing the accident. The respondent's claims of collusion and doubt regarding the claimant's truthfulness were found unsubstantiated due to the police investigation and eventual charge against the driver, which was not contested. (Paras 16, 17, 26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was attempting to board a bus when the driver, allegedly driving negligently, caused him to fall and sustain injuries. He claimed Rs.25,00,000 as compensation for permanent disability. (Para 6)
Findings of Court:
The Court found considerable merit in the claimant's arguments and ruled that the Tribunal had erred in attributing contributory negligence to the claimant. Instead, it established that the accident was indeed caused by the driver's negligence. (Paras 25, 26)
Issues: The primary issues revolved around the validity of the claimant's appeal for enhanced compensation and the question of negligence on the part of both the bus driver and the claimant. (Para 24)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that claims of false implication were unsubstantiated, supported by the police charge against the bus driver. The recognition of the police's investigative role was pivotal in the ruling. (Paras 18, 19)
Result: MFA.No.5313/2020 is allowed in part, and MFA.No.3620/2020 is dismissed, with an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,53,000 awarded to the claimant. (Para 28)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction and commonality of appeals. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. incident facts establishing liability. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. claims and defenses presented. (Para 7 , 9 , 11) |
| 4. claimant's arguments against false allegations. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. evidence substantiating claim validity. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. assessment of claimant's disability and income. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. compensation entitlement and interest rate. (Para 24 , 27) |
| 8. final order on appeals and compensation. (Para 28) |
JUDGMENT :
UMESH M. ADIGA, J.
1. Both these appeals arises out of the judgment and award dated 07.11.2019 passed by the Member, MACT, XVI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (for short `Tribunal') in MVC No.2289/2018.
2. Both the appeals arise out of common judgment and award, therefore they are taken up together for disposal.
3. Though the appeals are slated for admission, with consent of learned advocates appearing for both the sides, they are taken up for final disposal.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
5. MFA.No.3620/2020 is filed by the owner of the bus - BMTC challenging the quantum and its liability and MFA.No.5313/2020 is filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation.
6. The brief facts of the case are that, on 01.04.2017 at about 6.30 p.m., the petitioner was trying to board the bus (BMTC) bearing registration No.KA-57-F-824, at Mariyappanapalya junction. Before the petitioner could board the bus, driver of the bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. He was taken to local hospital wherein he took treatment as in-patient from 01.04.2017 to 04.04.2017. He was shifted to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient from 05.04.2017 to 08.04.2017; He underwent surgery and after discharge from the hospital, he took follow up treatment. He had sustained fracture of coronoid process of ulna and fracture of Head of radius. He has suffered permanent disability. He was an advocate practicing in Bengaluru and earning Rs.40,000/- per month. He was aged about 42 years at the time of accident. With these reasons, the petitioner prayed to award compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.
7. The respondent - BMTC filed its written statement denying the petition averments. Further, it has contended that petitioner in collusion with police and others, falsely implicated the offending bus, though it was not at all involved in the accident. The bus number was furnished to the police after two months from the date of alleged accident. These factors create doubt in the case of the petitioner. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
8. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.
9. The petitioner to prove his case, examined 3 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked 28 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-28. The respondent-BMTC has examined 2 witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2 and marked Exs.R-1 and R-2.
10. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment, awarded the following amount of compensation:
11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as the BMTC.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant/respondent seriously argued in line with grounds of the appeal. He contends that the bus belonging to respondent was falsely implicated in this case just to get wrongful gain. Claimant must have sustained injury in some other incident. In collusion with the concerned, he filed a false case against the driver of the bus. There is a delay in lodging the complaint, as well as reporting the vehicle number to police. These facts supports the contentions of the respondent. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition, by allowing the appeal.
13. Learned counsel for the claimant contends that immediately after the incident, claimant went to a local hospital and there
