Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (K.S.R.T.C) v. Smt Shashikala B

JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED

13.02.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.218/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT-8, SHIVAMOGGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.18,81,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal by Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation1, assailing the Judgment and Award dated

13.02.2023, passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and AMACT-8, Shivamogga2 in MVC No.218/2021.

¶2The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶3Facts germane to file the present appeal are as under:

3.1 In an accident occurred on

08.03.2021, one Mr.Shankar.R, proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-14-EA-9623, succumbed to injuries, due to rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA-17-F-1619, by its driver. The claimants i.e., wife and children of

1 KSRTC, for short 2 the Tribunal, for short

deceased Shankar, filed claim petition claiming that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month and claimed compensation of Rs.38,60,000/-.

3.2 Upon notice, respondents appeared through their respective counsel and filed separate statement of objections. They both denied the claim petition averments and specifically contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of motor cycle by the deceased, as he lost control over the bike while trying to overtake a Tractor-Trailer and in the event the Tribunal comes to conclusion that the claimants are entitled for compensation, then 50% of contributory negligence should be saddled on the deceased and sought to dismiss the claim petition.

3.3 The Tribunal after completion of trial, appreciating the evidence on record, both ocular and documentary, awarded total compensation of

Rs.18,81,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, considering the income at Rs.15,000/- per month, applying multiplier of 13, as the deceased was aged 50 years. It is this Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal, is called in question in this appeal by the Corporation.

¶4Heard, Sri.F.S.Dabali, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Corporation and Sri.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Madhukar Deshpande, learned counsel for the claimants.

¶5Learned counsel Sri.F.S.Dabali, with all vehemence submits that the spot sketch was drawn on the next day of the accident and spot mahazar states that there is no marks available in respect of the spot shown in the spot sketch. He further submits that the deceased was riding the motorcycle in an intoxicated state, which is evident from Ex.P12 FSL report. Despite the same, the

Tribunal has erred in not fastening contributory negligence on the deceased and sought to allow the appeal.

¶6Sri.Dilip Kumar, argued in support of the Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal and sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶7Though learned counsel Sri.F.S.Dabali contended that, the spot sketch was drawn on the next day of the accident and the spot mahazar states that, there is no marks available in respect of the spot shown in the spot sketch, however the KSRTC has not disputed this document before the Tribunal, either by placing any contra evidence or by summoning the concerned Investigating Officer on the spot sketch.

¶8Further, in Ex.P12 RFSL report, though the percentage of alcohol is 436.06 Mg/100 ml of blood, which is higher percentage when compared to the permissible percentage as provided under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Corporation has not placed on

record any material or examined any other witness to substantiate its contention that, riding under intoxication was the root cause for occurrence of the accident. Mere consumption of alcohol would not be sufficient to saddle contributory negligence on the deceased. That apart, the author of said document has not been examined to substantiate and corroborate the document. The spot sketch clearly indicates that, it was the bus which flied beyond the permissible use of road on the wrong side. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed.

¶9The amount in deposit if any, shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith, for disbursement.

¶10Entire balance amount shall be deposited by the Corporation before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶11Upon deposit, the apportionment and disbursement is as per the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶12In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 ct-vn

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6208 OF 2023(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT, CORPORATION (K.S.R.T.C), CHITRADURGBA DIVISION, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE SHANTHINAGARA, K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. DABALI FAKKIRAPPA SHIDRAMAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHASHIKALA B., W/O LATE SHANKAR R, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2. NITHYA S., D/O LATE SHANKAR R, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 3. SANJAY S, S/O LATE SHANKAR R, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/O 2ND CROSS, BUDDANAGARA, SANTHE MAIDANA RIGHT SIDE GOPALA EXTENSION SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. 4. RAGHAVENDRA Y SINGAD, S/O YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, DRIVER OF KSRTC BUS BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA-17-F-1619 R/O WARD NO.6, SINGAD GALLI ILKAL, HUNGUND ILKAL (RURAL) BAAGALKOT - 587 125. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILIP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.MADHUKAR M DESHPANDE.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3, VIDE ORDER DATED 01.02.2024 NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE