- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25980 MFA No. 4183 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4183 OF 2020(MV-D) BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC DEPOT, BANGALORE CENTRAL OFFICE, K. H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027. (RC OWNER OF KSRTC BUS BEARING REG NO.KA-57 F3720) NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS: CHIEF LAW OFFICER KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICES, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SUMANGALA A. SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O. MARIGOWDA 2. KALAVATHI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O. RAMEGOWDA 3. ROHINI R., AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, D/O. RAMEGOWDA Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25980 MFA No. 4183 of 2020 ALL ARE RESIDING AT: NO.372, 4TH CROSS, 2ND PHASE, NEAR CHANDRA LAYOUT, BAPUJI LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.V. SHYAM PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. D.S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS MFA FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.7232/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-5), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.13,75,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Smt.Sumangala.A.Swamy, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.K.V.Shyam Prasad who represents Sri.D.S.Sridhar, learned counsel on record for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25980 MFA No. 4183 of 2020 in MVC No.7232/2018 dated 16.11.2019. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal which fastened liability upon him, the appellant is before this Court. 3. The crux of the case as projected by the respondents/claimants before the Tribunal is that on 01.11.2018 at about 7.30 a.m. while the deceased Poorna Chandra was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-02-HY-3910 and was riding the said motor cycle on the extreme left side of the road slowly and cautiously, the driver of the appellant's bus bearing registration No.KA-57-F-3720 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased, due to which he fell down and sustained severe injuries. The deceased Poorna Chandra was shifted to the nearby hospital but he succumbed to injuries. 4. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the driver of the appellant was not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25980 MFA No. 4183 of 2020 at fault. The deceased Poorna Chandra was a minor by the date of accident. He was not possessing valid and effective driving license to drive the motor cycle by the date of accident. Thus the deceased Poorna Chandra contributed for the accident to occur. But without appreciating the said fact the Tribunal fastened entire liability upon the appellant and directed the appellant to pay compensation to the claimants. Learned counsel thereby seeks to allow the appeal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel who represents the respondents submits that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant. The respondents/claimants produced sufficient evidence both oral and documentary to establish the aspect of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant. The Tribunal considering the said evidence, fastened the liability against the petitioner/appellant and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25980 MFA No. 4183 of 2020 6. It is not in dispute that, a case was registered against the driver of the appellant by the concerned police basing on the complaint given. Equally it is not in dispute that the investigating officer visited the place of crime, examined relevant witnesses and ultimately filed charge sheet duly mentioning that the accident solely occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant. Respondents/claimants apart from producing all the relevant record i.e., Ex.P1-copy of FIR, Ex.P2-copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P3-copy of sketch, Ex.P4-copy of IMV report, Ex.P6 -inquest report and Ex.P7-copy of charge sheet also examined one of the eye witnesses to the accident as Pw.2. Though the appellant examined Rw.1 on its side, in the light of the convincing evidence produced by the respondents/claimants, the Tribunal clearly held that the accident solely occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant. 7. Even if it is taken that the deceased Poorna Chandra was a minor by the date of accident and he was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25980 MFA No. 4183 of 2020 not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the motor cycle which is involved in the accident, yet it is not the case of even the appellant that the motor cycle hit the bus. Admittedly, the motor cycle was moving ahead of the bus and the bus dashed the motor cycle at its rear side and thus the accident occurred. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the contentions raised regarding the age of the deceased Poorna Chandra and the driving license cannot be taken into consideration to hold that the deceased Poorna Chandra was negligent. 8. Though I.A.No.2/2020 is filed by the appellant seeking the Court to permit the appellant to produce additional evidence, the appellant failed to state any grounds which prevented him from producing such evidence before the Tribunal during the course of trial. Admittedly under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, additional evidence cannot be received unless and until the person produces such additional evidence satisfies the Court that he was prevented by sufficient cause from producing such - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25980 MFA No. 4183 of 2020 evidence before the trial Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are no merits to entertain I.A.No.2/2020. So far as the merits of the matter are concerned, having regard to the discussions that went on supra, this Court is of the view that the appeal lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed. 9. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed without costs. 10. The amount, if any, in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal immediately. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39