- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46808-DB MFA No. 470 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 470 OF 2019 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. IRINE N.H. W/O LATE SRI. NIDHAN HADDANNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 2. KUM. ROJALIN D/O LATE SRI. NIDHAN HADDANNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 3. KUM. DAYANA D/O LATE SRI. NIDHAN HADDANNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 4. KUM. REBBEKA D/O ALTE SRI. NIDHAN HADDANNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, APPELLANT NO.3 AND 4 ARE MINORS, AND REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. IRINE N.H., I.E., THE APPELLANT NO.1, THE APPELLANT NO.1 TO 4: R/O NO.119, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BANGALORE-560 100. PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT: GULEDAGUDDA VILLAGE, - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46808-DB MFA No. 470 of 2019 BADAMI TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT. 5. SMT. YAMNAVVA LR'S OF SMT.YAMNAVVA ARE SHOWN ABOVE THE APPELLANT NO.4 (SINCE DEAD AS PER ORDER DATED 07.11.2016) …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SIDDANOOR VISHWANATHA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., SHANTINAGAR, K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU 560 027. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.2-B, UNITY BUILDING, ANNEXURE, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002. REP. BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. F.S.DABALI., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. C.R.RAVISHANKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.06.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.2791/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & XIX ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-23), DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH & HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46808-DB MFA No. 470 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants, assailing the judgment and award dated 02.06.2017 passed in MVC No. 2791/2015 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH-23), Bengaluru, whereby the claim petition was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the deceased was solely responsible for the accident, a conclusion primarily based on the fact that the charge sheet filed by the investigating authorities was against the deceased. 2. The case of the claimants is that on 26.11.2014 at about 01:55 p.m., a KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA-01-F-8505 was proceeding on the Mysore-Gundlupet Main Road. Near Garaganahalli Gate, the deceased, who was driving a Bolero jeep bearing registration No. KA-10- M-806 coming from the opposite direction, collided with the bus. The impact of the accident resulted in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46808-DB MFA No. 470 of 2019 instantaneous death of Sri Nidhan Haddannavar, the driver of the jeep. 3. Upon the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for determination: “Issues 1. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased Sri. Nidhan Haddannavar, was died in a in a road traffic accident that occurred on 26.11.2014 at about 1:55 p.m., on Mysore to Gundlupet Main Road, near Garaganahalli Gate, whether deceased was driving in a Bolero Jeep bearing No.KA-10- M-806, due to rash and negligent act of driving of the bus driver, vehicle bearing No.KA-01-F-8505 as alleged in the petition? 2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal representative of deceased and they are depending on the income of the deceased? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation from whom? 4. What order or award?” 4. After considering the evidence and submissions, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the accident was the result of the negligence of the bus driver, who was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46808-DB MFA No. 470 of 2019 driving rashly and negligently and dashed against the Bolero jeep. Paradoxically, and as the core of this appeal, the Tribunal ultimately dismissed the claim petition, holding the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the road width was 30 feet, and repair work was ongoing on the right side of the bus's path. Consequently, the driver of the Bolero jeep was compelled to move to the wrong side of the road to navigate the obstruction. He contends that the deceased was not negligent; rather, the bus driver, driving rashly and negligently, caused the accident. 6. We have examined the material on record. The site map (Exhibit P6) indicates that the jeep had moved entirely to its extreme right, onto the path of the oncoming bus, resulting in the collision. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the bus driver was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46808-DB MFA No. 470 of 2019 driving in a rash or negligent manner. The site map clearly shows that the point of impact was on the side of the road on which the bus was rightfully proceeding, not on the side of the jeep. Both vehicles were moving in opposite directions. 7. Applying the maxim res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself"), the circumstances—specifically, the jeep being on the wrong side of the road at the time of collision—lead to the reasonable inference that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. We find no perversity or error in the Tribunal's appreciation of evidence and its consequent finding on negligence, which would warrant interference by this Court. 8. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. 9. It is made clear, however, that this dismissal shall not preclude the appellants from pursuing any other - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46808-DB MFA No. 470 of 2019 remedy that may be available in law against the owner of the jeep, if so advised. No order as to costs. (D K SINGH) JUDGE (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15 Digitally signed by DINESH KUMAR SINGH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA