- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13432 MFA No. 4822 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4822 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR REPRESENTED BY ITS BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M.R.KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MUNISHAMI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 2. NAVANEETHAMMA W/O M.R. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 3. AMARAVATHI D/O M.R.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 4. M.K. MADHURA D/O M.R. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 5. M.K. SATHYA PREMA KUMARI D/O M.R. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS 6. M.K. SHUBAMANGALA D/O M.R. KRISHNAPPA Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13432 MFA No. 4822 of 2014 AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS 7. M.K. INDIRA D/O M.R. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS 8. M.K. SONIYA D/O M.R. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS RESPONDENT 8 IS A MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN ALL ARE R/O DODDAKURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE, HOLU HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK-563 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V.VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25.04.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.122/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MACT, KOLAR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,24,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.122/2012 dated 25.04.2014 by the Principal District Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kolar, the BMTC is before this Court. 2. The case of the claimant is that the deceased had been to Bangalore to attend his avocation as flower decorator. On - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13432 MFA No. 4822 of 2014 15.03.2012 at about 1:30 p.m., the sister of the deceased was in the house of his elder sister and she received a telephone call that her brother has met with an accident at Ramamurthy Nagar, Bangalore. On receiving such information, the petitioner No.4/sister of deceased rushed to Ramamurthy Nagar Bangalore and went to the accident spot, where her brother was found lying dead. She enquired in the spot as to how the accident had occurred and which vehicle had caused the accident resulting the death of her brother. She was told by public at the spot and other eyewitnesses to the accident that the Swaraj Mazda/school bus belonged to the BMTC bearing registration No.KA01-F-2905 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed and dashed against the deceased. 3. It is the case of the BMTC that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. In fact, at the relevant point of time the vehicle was not flying in the said route. For this purpose they relied on the evidence of the driver who has stated that at that particular time he had not passed through the said road. The tribunal had given a finding that on perusing the copy of the charge sheet, the name of PW-3/Harish does not find place - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13432 MFA No. 4822 of 2014 as an eye witness. The names of certain eyewitnesses have been mentioned in the charge sheet and the statements given by those eyewitnesses namely Mohammed Ataulla, Rajesh Kumar, Muniraju have been produced as Ex.P-16 to P-18 wherein they have categorically stated the involvement of BMTC Bus No. No.KA01-F-2905 in the said accident and during recording of the statement before police, those eyewitnesses have stated that the driver of the bus was responsible in causing the accident and the driver of the bus has been charge sheeted by the police and the prosecution launched against him is still pending trial. The driver of the bus has not challenged the charge sheet and never taken any steps seeking for quashing of the proceedings against the driver of the bus, then the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the Bus has involved in the incident and because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the accident had occurred and granted the compensation of amount of Rs.6,24,000/-. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/BMTC submits that the Trial Court had failed to consider the evidence of the driver which clenches the issue and also shows that vehicle was not flying in the said route as on the date of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13432 MFA No. 4822 of 2014 accident and all these aspects were not considered by the Trial Court, though the vehicle is not involved still the liability is fastened on the owner and the insurer of the vehicle. 5. Having heard the counsels on the either side, perused the material on record. The admitted facts of the case are that after full-fledged investigation the police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the school bus. Except the evidence of the driver, there is no other evidence placed on record to show that the said vehicle is not involved in the accident. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial court had looked at the exhibits i.e., charge sheet and other documents filed by the claimant and rightly held that the accident had occurred because of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and the same is involved. In the view of the matter this court finds no reason to interfere with the well considered award passed by the Tribunal. i. Accordingly the appeal filed by the BMTC is dismissed. ii. The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transmitted to the tribunal. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13432 MFA No. 4822 of 2014 iii. The Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Record to the Tribunal along with the certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. iv. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4