Back
Karnataka HC Slams Bus Operator for Blaming Victim After Internally Punishing Driver
In a stinging rebuke to public accountability, the dismissed an appeal by the against a Rs 1.1 crore compensation award for a fatal bus accident. The division bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Hon'ble Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha ruled that the corporation could not shift blame to the deceased passenger after disciplining its own driver and conductor for the mishap.
The Deadly Doorway Dash
The tragedy unfolded when Vinod Kumar Mane died in an accident involving a KKRTC bus. His wife Sunita, minor sons Gourishankar and Lakshminarayana, and mother Shashikala filed a claim under the before the . On , the MACT awarded Rs 1,10,36,200 with 6% interest, holding the corporation liable.
KKRTC appealed on , under (MFA No. 201877/2025), arguing the deceased was negligent by standing at the bus doorway in city limits despite empty seats.
Corporation's Contradictory Crusade
KKRTC's counsel, , insisted the deceased's actions caused his death, absolving the driver and conductor. However, pressed by the court, he revealed disciplinary actions: the contract driver was sacked on , and the conductor lost one annual increment permanently—both stemming from the same incident.
Respondents' counsel, , defended the MACT award, highlighting the family's loss.
Court Calls Out the Flip-Flop
The bench zeroed in on KKRTC's double standards. Having pinned culpability on its employees in internal probes—orders dated , and —the corporation's court plea reeked of inconsistency. Justices noted these facts were hidden from the MACT and initially from the High Court.
Drawing on the principle against ""—blowing hot and cold—the court held such contradictory positions impermissible. As a State instrumentality under , KKRTC must uphold 's fairness, rejecting arbitrary victim-blaming post-disciplinary findings.
The non-disclosure smacked of "," dooming the appeal. Echoing reports like Karnataka HC Rejects Transport Corporation's Plea Against ₹1.1 Crore Accident Compensation, Says Can't Blame Deceased After Disciplining Driver , the ruling underscores clean hands in litigation.
Key Observations from the Bench
-
On inconsistent stands :
"A party cannot be permitted to . A party cannot ' ' by taking inconsistent stands to suit its convenience, such inconsistent pleas are impermissible in law."
-
Linking discipline to liability :
"The Corporation, having conducted disciplinary proceedings and having recorded a finding of culpability against its employees... cannot now be permitted to contend that the deceased himself was negligent and that such alleged negligence was the of his death."
-
Suppression's sting :
" itself is sufficient to disentitle a party from relief and warrants dismissal of the proceedings."
-
State's higher bar :
"The appellant–Corporation, being an ... is held to a higher standard of fairness and consistency. Its actions must conform to the mandate of ."
Dismissal with a Costly Warning
The , order dismissed the appeal outright. KKRTC must pay Rs 25,000 nominal costs to the by —recoverable from litigating officers after inquiry.
The Managing Director faces directives: issue disclosure circulars on disciplinary matters, install litigation scrutiny, and enforce accountability for misleading pleas.
This precedent fortifies victim rights in MV claims, curbing public bodies' tactical shifts and promoting transparent litigation. Families like Sunita's can breathe easier, while transport firms face stricter oversight.
