SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 439798

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
UMESH M ADIGA
SRI SHANKARANARAYANA – Appellant
Versus
SRI PUTTAPPA – Respondent
MFA 2245/2020



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2245 OF 2020 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SRI. SHANKARANARAYANA,

S/O K. NARAYANA,

AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,

R/O NO.20/57/3, BRAHMIN VALLEY,

GOVINDARARAO COMPOUND,

NEAR JYOTHI MILL,

MADIKERI,

KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 215.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. NAGARAJA H. R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. PUTTAPPA,

Digitally signed S/O SUBBAIAH,

by

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

ANNAPURNA G

BUS DRIVER,

Location: HIGH

R/O BASAVANAHALLI,

COURT OF

KUSHALNAGAR - 571 234.

KARNATAKA

2. SMT GEETHA H,

AGE MAJOR,

DEPOT MANAGER,

KSRTC DEPOT,

MADIKERI - 571 215.

3. THE MANAGER,

INTERNAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

DOUBLE ROAD,

SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V. G. BHANU PRAKASH., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3;

V/O DATED 30.03.2022 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.06.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.196/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, M.A.C.T., KODAGU, MADIKERI, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 17th June 2019, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, M.A.C.T., Kodagu, Madikeri, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.196/2017, seeking enhancement of compensation.

Though this appeal is listed for orders, with the consent of both the parties it is taken up for final disposal.

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 02.06.2017 at about 05.15 p.m., when the claimant was alighting from the bus bearing registration No.KA-19-F-2985 in front of the KSRTC bus stand at Madikeri, the driver of the bus negligently drove the vehicle before claimant alighted from the bus, as a result, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation.

4. Respondent-KSRTC denied the petition averments and denied involvement of the bus bearing registration No.KA- 19-F-2985 in the accident and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues, for its determination.

6. The claimant to prove his case examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked 39 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-39. Respondents examined one witness as RW-1 and marked documents as Exs.R-1 to R-4.

7. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, held that the claimant was unable to prove that the accident occurred due to the involvement of the bus bearing registration No.KA-19-F-2985. Therefore, rejected the claim petition. The same is challenged in the present appeal.

8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that on the date of accident the claimant was traveling from Kushalnagar to Madikeri. He had initially boarded a bus bearing registration No.KA-09-F-4728 and on the way it got punctured. Therefore, the passengers in the said bus boarded another bus bearing registration No.KA-19-F-2985 and reached Madikeri. Before reaching the Madikeri KSRTC bus stand, there was another stop which was near a private bus stop. While petitioner was alighting at the said bus stop, the driver of the bus negligently drove the vehicle without looking at the alighting passengers. As a result, the claimant fell down from the bus and sustained injuries. He further contends that respondent-corporation has not denied the said fact and according to the corporation, the claimant fell down somewhere else and sustained injuries. Hence, there is no specific denial of the petition averments. The Tribunal has not considered the said point.

10. He further submits that PW.1 in his evi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top