- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13430 MFA No. 2877 of 2013 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. 2877 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE 560027 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR …APPELLANT (BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE) AND: VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O RAMAPPA R/O KAMANDAHALLI VILLAGE MAVAHALLI POST BANGARAPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT- 563 114 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:09.07.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.8802/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES (SCCH-3), MEMBER MACT-3, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,12,745/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13430 MFA No. 2877 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed in M.V.C.No.8802/2010 dated 09.07.2012 by the VII Additional Judge, Member, MACT - 3, Bangalore, the appellant/ KSRTC is before this Court. 2. The appellant/KSRTC has also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC placing before this Court, the MLC Register Extract issued by the Government General Hospital, KGF, in which the claimant was admitted after the accident. 3. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a road traffic accident occurred on 25.09.2010. It is the case of the claimant that on 25.09.2010, while he was walking from Dasarahosahalli from Bangarapet at about 6:30 a.m. near Bangarapet-K.G.F road, a KSRTC bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the claimant near Benganur Gate. Due to the accident, the claimant had sustained grievous injuries and he was taken to Kamadhenu Hospital, D.K.halli. After first aid, he was shifted to the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13430 MFA No. 2877 of 2013 Government Hospital, K.G.F. and then to R.L.Jalappa Hospital, Kolar and he was treated as an inpatient. 4. It is the case of the appellant/KSRTC that the vehicle is not involved in the accident. The Tribunal had given a finding that the claimant has proved the accident by placing oral and documentary evidence. The Tribunal observed that on the basis of the complaint filed by one Govindappa, the Police have filed charge sheet against the driver of the bus for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 of IPC read with 134 (A)(B) 187 of the IMV Act. Ex.P1 which is registered on 27.09.2010 i.e., two days after the accident and the number of the bus is also shown. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the KSRTC bus is involved in the accident and the accident had taken place because of the negligence of the driver. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/KSRTC basing on an application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, submits that in the MLC Register Extract, it is mentioned that the claimant was hit by a private bus and it is his submission that it is a private bus but not a KSRTC bus. The said aspect was not brought to the notice of the Court. Taking that into - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13430 MFA No. 2877 of 2013 consideration, it has to be held that the KSRTC bus is not involved in the accident and the bus has been implicated and as such, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant submits that in all the Police records, the number of the vehicle is mentioned. In the MLC Register Extract, just because they have written it as a private bus, it cannot be said that the KSRTC bus is not involved in the accident. It is submitted that on that ground, the order of the Tribunal cannot be interfered with. It is submitted that when they are relying on a particular document, the process connected with the said document, hospital authorities have to be examined. Without examining them, any amount of evidence that is placed before the Court is of no use. 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. Before the Tribunal, it was never the case of the KSRTC that the vehicle is not involved. The Tribunal considering the Police Records and other documents had held that the vehicle is involved in the accident and fastened the liability on the KSRTC. This Court has perused - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13430 MFA No. 2877 of 2013 the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. Learned counsel for the KSRTC is relying on the said document to show that because it is stated that it is a private bus, the KSRTC bus is not involved. This Court is not able to appreciate the said submission of the learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC and the involvement of the bus is not in dispute. If this had been filed before the Tribunal, the respondent/claimant would have had an opportunity at that point of time to examine the concerned with regard to what has been stated. Now, after these many years, remanding the matter would not serve any useful purpose. Basing on that, this Court cannot interfere with the findings of the Tribunal in the light of the other documents that are placed before the Court. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the KSRTC is dismissed. i. The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the trial Court. ii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13430 MFA No. 2877 of 2013 copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. iii. No costs. iv. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 3 Sl No.: 5