- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33950 MFA No. 3784 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3784 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, MYSORE DIVISION, BANNIMANTAPA ROAD, MYSORE-570 001. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, KSRTC, K.H. DOUBLE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027. 3. THE MANAGER/OFFICER I/C OF INTERNAL INSURANCE SCHEME, KSRTC, K.H DOUBLE ROAD, BANGALOE-560 027. ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027. …APPELLANTS (BY MR. F S DABALI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. C.M. JANAKI, W/O A.K. DEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, HUNSUR COFFEE CURING WORKS, STAFF COLONY, HUNSUR, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 105. Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33950 MFA No. 3784 of 2015 2. K H LAKSHMINARASIMHAMURTHY, S/O LATE K N EIRANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, KSRTC. DIRVER, MYSORE DIVN.II DEPOT, BANNIMANTAP ROAD, MYSORE-570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY MR. K R BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 3.12.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.46/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, HUNSUR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.55,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF DECREE TILL PAYMENT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed impugning the judgment in MVC.No.46/2013 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Hunsuru dated 03.12.2014, where the appellant was the respondent. 2. The factural matrix of the case is that on 12.06.2002, when the petitioner-Janaki was traveling in KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-09-F-2188 from Hunsuru to Gonikoppa, the driver drove the said bus in a rash and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33950 MFA No. 3784 of 2015 negligent manner and jumped over a road hump near Kalbetta, resulting in the petitioner suffering spinal injuries (Lumbar thoracic region) and after reaching GoniKappa, she went to a private doctor for treatment. Thereafter on 23.06.2002, she went to the Government Hospital at Hunsuru and took treatment from PW2. Thereafter, the treatment being not effective, she went to Mysuru on 02.07.2002 and then to Bengaluru for further treatment. It was contended that she had sustained a wedge compression fracture of her back adjacent to the spinal cord and as such, she is entitled for compensation from the appellant-KSRTC. 3. On being served with the notice, the respondents who are the driver and the owner-corporation appeared before the Tribunal. They resisted the claim petition contending that the said bus bearing No.KA-09-F- 2188 had not plied between Mysuru and Virajpet on 12.06.2002 and in fact the said bus had plied between Gokarna and Mysuru. They also denied that there was any - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33950 MFA No. 3784 of 2015 such injury suffered by the petitioner, while she was traveling in the said bus and that there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint to the Police. Therefore, there is no such injury suffered by the petitioner in the accident involving the bus of the appellant. 4. On the basis of the contentions, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioner was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to P11 were marked. The Respondent No.1, who is the driver of the bus was examined as RW.1 and Ex.R1 was marked. 5. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal determined the compensation amount at Rs.55,000/- and fastened the liability on the appellant-Corporation to pay the same along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent- Corporation is before this Court in appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33950 MFA No. 3784 of 2015 7. Sri.F.S.Dabali, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence available on record and has reluctantly came to the conclusion that the bus bearing No.KA-09-F-2188 was involved in the accident. Secondly, he contends that the Tribunal after hearing, holding that the nexus between the alleged accident and the injuries suffered by the petitioner is proved by overlooking the fact that there is absolutely no material on record to show where the petitioner had taken treatment between 12.06.2002 to 23.06.2002. The petitioner had not mentioned about the accident anywhere between 12.06.2002 to 23.06.2002. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court. 8. The first aspect to be looked into is in respect of the involvement of the vehicle bearing No.KA-09-F-2188. It is worth to note that based on the complaint filed by the petitioner, Hunsuru Rural Police Station had registered the case in Cr.No.131/2002 on 26.08.2002 and commenced the investigation. During investigation, the bus bearing - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33950 MFA No. 3784 of 2015 No.KA-09-F-2188 was seized and thereafter, released to the Appellant-Corporation. The Investigating Agency also recorded the statements of the witnesses and the IO came to the conclusion that an accident had taken place involving the bus bearing No.KA-09-F-2188 and as such, filed the charge sheet against the driver i.e., respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. 9. A careful perusal of the testimony of RW.1 shows that he admits that he was the driver of the bus on the date of the accident. But he submits that it was not the bus bearing No.KA-09-F-2188, but he was the driver of the bus bearing No.KA-09-F-2523. He admits that the Police had filed the charge sheet against him and he had contested the criminal case. He denies that any accident had taken place in respect of the bus driven by him. It is pertinent to note that in the cross-examination he categorically admit that the bus bearing No.KA-09-F-2188 was seized by the Police. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33950 MFA No. 3784 of 2015 10. Apart from the testimony of RW.1, the charge sheet papers disclose that the conductor of the bus had also given a statement before the Investigating Officer and he had stated that the bus bearing No.KA-09-F-2188 was involved in the accident. On a careful perusal of the above evidence on record, it appears that there is some inconsistency in respect of the bus number which was involved. However, the fact that the alleged another bus which was driven by RW.1 on the date of the accident was also owned by the appellant herein. This aspect is not in dispute. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that in any case the appellant is liable to pay the compensation. No fault can be found in respect of the said finding. Though there is some discrepancy which is attempted by the Appellant-Corporation to bring on record, there is no conclusive evidence to show the same. The fact remains that the entire criminal case was fought by the RW.1 on the premise that it was the bus bearing No.2188. The judgment of the Criminal Court in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33950 MFA No. 3784 of 2015 CC.No.428/2002, which is produced at Ex.R1 also considers this aspect and it only concludes that there is some discrepancy in respect of the bus number and on that basis, a benefit of doubt was given to the driver and as such, he was acquitted. Therefore, so far as fastening the liability upon the appellant on this account by the Tribunal, cannot be faulted. 11. The second aspect to be considered is whether there is a nexus between the accident and the injuries suffered by the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant points out that there is no material on record to show that the petitioner had taken any treatment anywhere between 12.06.2002 and 23.06.2002. A person who has suffered the spinal injury cannot remain without a treatment for about 10 days. Therefore, this gap between the date of the accident and the treatment taken is vital and should have been explained by the petitioner. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33950 MFA No. 3784 of 2015 12. A perusal of Exs.P3 and P4 would show that the petitioner had approached one Dr.K.K.Sivappa on 12.06.2002 at Gonikoppa and she had complained of acute pain in back lumbar thoracic region. She had injury at the back while traveling in the KSRTC bus as depicted in Ex.P4. The said Dr.K.K.Shivappa was examined before the Criminal Court as PW.12. There appears to be some discrepancy in the testimony of Dr.K.K.Shivappa before the Criminal Court, which has been noticed in the said judgment at Ex.R1. 13. A perusal of Exs.P3-Wound Certificates issued by PW.2, Dr.Channegowda shows that the petitioner had complained of a road traffic accident on 12.06.2002 at about 09.30 a.m. involving the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA- 09-F-2188 near Kalbetta. She had also stated before PW.2 as depicted in Ex.P3 that the petitioner "had got treated herself by a traditional bone setter in home from 12.06.2002 to 23.06.2002" and thereafter, she had approached the PW2. He notices that there was a severe - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33950 MFA No. 3784 of 2015 injury to the petitioner at T-11 vertebra. The testimony of PW.2 before the Tribunal shows that he had advised the petitioner to take treatment at Mysuru. In the cross- examination, nothing is brought out which would show that there is any reason to doubt Ex.P3. The conjoint reading of Exs.P3 and P4 would inevitably lead to the conclusion that what is explained in Ex.P3 that the petitioner had taken treatment from a traditional bone setter has to be accepted. There is no cross-examination on this aspect either to the petitioner or to the PW.2. 14. It is also relevant to note that PW.1 do not say about the treatment taken by the bone setter between 12.06.2002 and 22.06.2002. When the appellant was disputing the said treatment as mentioned in Ex.P3, it was incumbent upon the appellant to cross-examine the P.W1 or the PW.2 in this regard. Therefore, the conclusions reached by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with on the ground that the claim is based on a beneficial legislation and in whatever circumstance, involvement of the bus - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33950 MFA No. 3784 of 2015 owned by the appellant cannot be disputed. Under these circumstances, this Court finds that there are no sufficient reasons to interfere with the conclusions reached by the Tribunal. It is trite law that the judgment of the Trial Court cannot be unsettled by the Appellate Court only on the ground that another view is possible. Hence, this Court finds no merit in the appeal and as such, the same is dismissed. The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE NR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29