Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 1973
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC – Appellant
Versus
SRI. RAMJI @ RAMUJI @ RAMJILAL S/O RATHANLAL – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5466 OF 2015 | MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5617 OF 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT. ARUNA BHAT, SRI. G LAKSHMEESH RAO
For the Respondents: SRI. P SHIVAKUMAR
The court determined shared negligence in a road accident case, attributing 75% liability to the KSRTC driver and recalculating compensation for the deceased's dependents.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173(1) - Appeal against judgment and award of MACT for compensation - Court found that deceased contributed to negligence while crossing the national highway - KSRTC's contribution of negligence was established at 75% attributing the accident to the driver - Compensation recalculated for loss of dependency, love, and funeral expenses. (Paras 6, 12, 14)
(B) Compensation quantification - The court recalibrated compensation due to miscalculation in the Tribunal regarding income, future prospects, and considerations for dependence on a bachelor deceased. (Paras 8, 10, 13)
Facts of the case:
The accident occurred on the national highway when deceased was crossing the road and was struck by the KSRTC bus. The deceased died on the spot, and the original compensation awarded was challenged for inadequacy.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal erred in the negligence attribution and compensation quantification - general risks associated with crossing a highway and adjustment in compensation were crucial.
Issues: Negligence distribution between deceased and bus driver; adequacy of awarded compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: Underlined judicial precedents indicated that shared negligence must proportionately reduce total compensation. The deceased’s contributed negligence is relevant to the compensatory calculations.
Result: Appeals allowed-in-part.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident occurred due to the deceased crossing the national highway. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding the negligence and compensation. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. shared liability determined based on the negligence of both the deceased and the bus driver. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. court's final ruling on modifying compensation based on shared negligence. (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
MFA.No.5466/2015 is filed by the KSRTC challenging the judgment and award dated 29.04.2015 in MVC.No.4280/2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-17), questioning attribution of entire negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and also for reduction of compensation.
MFA.No.5617/2015 is filed by the claimants challenging the aforesaid judgment and award for seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 04.08.2014 at about 7.30 pm., the deceased was crossing Tumkur- Bangalore NH-4 main road, on Kengal Kempohali Bus Stand, at that time, a KSRTC bus bearing Reg. No.KA-19-F-3098 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased fell down and wheel of the bus run on the head of the deceased and the deceased died on the spot.
3. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the records.
4. Smt.Aruna Bhat, learned counsel appearing for Sri G.Lakshmeesh submitted that, in the present case, the accident was caused on the national highway while the deceased was crossing the national highway near Kengal Kempohalli Bus Stand, Tumkur-Bangalore NH-4. Therefore, submitted that the national highway is mainly meant for plying the vehicle with speed and crossing of the national highway is prohibited other than the fixed place for crossing the road. Therefore, submitted that upon perusing Ex.P.3-Panchanama and Ex.P.4-spot sketch, the accident was caused near the divider, which means, it is the deceased has taken the risk while crossing the road, even though, observing the bus that was coming on the national highway. Therefore, submitted that the deceased has also contributed 50% of his negligence and caused the accident. Further submitted that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side, therefore, prays for reducing the same.
5. On the other hand, Sri P.Shivakumar, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that in the complaint the entire allegation is made against the driver of the bus and resultantly, the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the bus. Therefore, submitted that the entire rash and negligent aspect is on the driver of the KSRTC bus and caused the accident. Therefore, submitted that the Tribunal is correct in holding that the driver of the bus was completely rash and negligent in driving the bus. Therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal. Further submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lesser side. Therefore, prays for enhancement of compensation.
6. Undisputedly, the accident was caused near Kengal Kempohalli Bus Stand, Tumkur-Bangalore NH-4. Though, the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the KSRTC bus, but the rash and negligent aspect is to be considered in the claim proceedings and the evidence placed before it, without being influenced by the charge sheet upon the principle of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself). The bus was coming from Tumkur to Bangalore side. The road is NH.4. The place of accident is shown near the divider towards southern side. The national highway is primarily meant for plying of the vehicle with speed and crossing of national highway from one edge to another edge is prohibited other than the fixed area meant for crossing the road like sky walk, sky bridge etc. Therefore, crossing the national highway upon seeing the vehicle plying on the national highway is nothing but inviting the risk while crossing the national highway. Upon considering the spot mahazar –Ex.P.3 and spot sketch-Ex.P4 respectively, the KSRTC bus
