Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 19082
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
RAVI V HOSMANI, J
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, N.E.K.R.T.C. – Appellant
Versus
SANJU @ SANJUKUMAR S/O VITHAL CHAVAN – Respondent
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200451 OF 2022 (MV-I)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI
For the Respondents: SRI SANJEEV PATIL
Negligence in motor vehicle accidents necessitates careful assessment of evidence to evaluate liability, particularly regarding the duty of care owed by operators of larger vehicles.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act - Section 173(1) - Appeal challenging negligence finding in accident case - Appellant sought to set aside tribunal's award arguing contributory negligence - Tribunal held driver of NEKRTC bus solely liable for accident resulting in permanent disability to claimant - Established that claimant did not verify traffic while merging onto highway, but tribunal found bus driver negligent and thus awarded compensation. (Paras 8-12)
Findings of Court:
The tribunal properly assessed evidence and established negligence by bus driver while dismissing contributory negligence from claimant as mere admission lacking substantiation.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the tribunal was justified in attributing complete negligence to the NEKRTC without considering the claimant's partial fault.
Ratio Decidendi: It was determined the bus driver had a higher duty of care owing to the vehicle's nature and the circumstances of the accident highlighted negligent driving practices.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing negligence through accident details. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding negligence and contributory fault. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. evaluation of evidence regarding driver negligence and claimant's contributions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200451 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, N.E.K.R.T.C., SARIGE SADAN, OPP: KBN HOSPITAL, MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI.
(NOW REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE, KALABURAGI).
…APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SANJU @ SANJUKUMAR S/O VITHAL CHAVAN, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER, R/O: HADNOOR TANDA, TQ: CHITTAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI, NOW AT SUNDAR NAGAR, OPP: GOVT. HOSPITAL, KALABURAGI – 585 101.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE Motor Vehicles Act , PAYING TO allow the above appeal by SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.08.2021 IN MVC NO.582/2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, KALABURAGI IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 18.08.2021 passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi (for short, 'tribunal') in MVC no.582/2019, this appeal is filed.
2. Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel for appellant-NEKRTC submitted appeal was filed challenging award passed by Tribunal on aspect of negligence. It was submitted, as per claimant, on 02.12.2018, he was riding motorcycle no.KA-51/ED-7789 from Madabool Thanda on Kalaburagi-Sedam State Highway. Near Ravi hotel, bus belonging to NEKRTC no.KA-32/F-2411 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner came from behind and dashed against motorcycle causing accident. In accident, claimant sustained injuries and was admitted to Dr.Kamreddy Hospital, Kalaburagi. Despite treatment, he did not recover fully and sustained permanent physical disability/loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim petition against owner of bus– NEKRTC under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act .
3. On contest, wherein NEKRTC opposed claim petition not only on ground of quantum but also on ground of negligence alleging contributory negligence by claimant to entire extent in causing accident, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence, claimant examined himself and Dr.Marthand Kulkarni as PWs.1 and 2. Exs.P.1 to P.14 were got marked. Respondent examined its driver as RW.1 but did not marked any documents.
4. On consideration, tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus by its driver and claimant was entitled for total compensation of `4,51,518/- with interest at rate of 6% per annum from NEKRTC.
Aggrieved, this appeal was filed.
5. It was submitted, in order to establish rash and negligent driving of bus by its driver, claimant relied on police investigation records. Ex.P.4 – crime details form containing accident spot sketch would reveal that it was claimant who rode his motorcycle from a cross road onto Sedam-Kalaburagi State Highway on which NEKRTC bus was plying, without verifying oncoming traffic. It was submitted, Ex.P.5 – motor vehicle accident inspector’s report would noted damages found on both vehicles. Therefore, tribunal was not justified in relying on complaint, FIR and charge-sheet filed against driver of NEKRTC bus and fastening liability on it. It was further submitted, during cross-examination, claimant admitted that he was not having driving licence at time of accident and that accident had occurred due to his negligence. On said ground, sought for allowing appeal and setting aside award.
6. Sri Sanjeev Patil, learned counsel for respondent-
claimant opposed appeal. It was submitted, tribunal had taken note of facts a
