- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26443 MFA No. 3531 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3531 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, DAVANAGERE DEPOT COURT, DAVANAGERE 577001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC CENTRALOFFICE, K.H ROAD, BANGALORE 560027 2. THE CHAIRMAN K S R T C INTERNAL SECURITY FUND, SARIGE, BHAVAN,SHANTHINAGAR, K.H ROAD, BANGALORE 560027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H ROAD, BANGALORE 560027 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K BASAVARAJAPPA S/O KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT MAYAKONDA VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT 577534 2. SANTHOSH S/O RANGASWAMY, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26443 MFA No. 3531 of 2014 AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, DRIVER OF KSRTC BUS BEARING REG.NO.KA-17/F- 1302, DAVANAGERE DEPOT, R/O MASKHAL VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 572143 3. KHADAR SON OF JABBAR SAB, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, DRIVER OF SHARMA TRAVELS BUS BEARING REG. ADI MASZID ROAD, 6TH CROSS,DEVASANDRA K.R PURAM BANGALORE 560036 4. M/S. SHARMA TRANSPORT NO. 328, SANGEETHA BHAWAN, TSP ROAD, KALASIPALYA FORT, BANGALORE 560002 REPT. BY ITS MANAGER 5. THE MANAGER ICICI LABOARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, OPPT. HIGH SCHOOL FIELD, DAVANAGERE 577001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASANNA V R, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. A.N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R5; R1 TO R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.12.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.339/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, DAVANAGERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.68,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26443 MFA No. 3531 of 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the respondent No.3/KSRTC against the judgment and award dated 31st December 2013, passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT-V, Davanagere, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.339/2012, challenging fastening of the liability on respondent No.3 to pay 80% of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 31.08.2011, at about 7.30 a.m., the claimant was travelling in the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-17/F-1302. The driver of the said bus, while he was going near Anagodu Village without giving any signal suddenly turned the bus towards right side. At that time, Sharma Travels bus bearing registration No.KA- 01/AA-679 came in a rash and negligent manner behind the KSRTC bus and hit the back side of the KSRTC bus. 4. As per the averments in the claim petition, the drivers of both the vehicles were rash and negligent in driving - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26443 MFA No. 3531 of 2014 their respective vehicles, which resulted in the accident. Therefore, prayed to award the compensation. 5. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a written statement denying the contention of the claimant and further stated that the accident took place due to the negligence of driver of the bus belonging to respondent No.5. The driver of respondent No.2-bus was not at all responsible for the accident. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 to 3. 6. Similarly, respondent No.5 filed the written statement denying the contents of the claim petition and denied its liability to pay the compensation. It is further contended that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to KSRTC, by its driver. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.5. 7. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 8. The claimant to prove his case examined one witness as PW-1 and marked 17 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26443 MFA No. 3531 of 2014 P-17. Respondents have not led any oral and documentary evidence. 9. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the materials available on record by the impugned judgment, awarded the compensation of Rs.68,000/- and directed that it shall be apportioned between respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the ratio of 80% and respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the ratio of 20%. Being aggrieved by the said finding, respondent No.2 and 3 filed this appeal. 10. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties. 11. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment at paragraph No.8 discussed the reason to apportion the negligence in the ratio of 80% and 20% between the KSRTC bus and the Private bus. Two reasons were assigned by the Tribunal. First one is that the driver of the KSRTC bus did not give a signal at the time of turning his vehicle on the highway. Second, KSRTC gave compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the victim of the accident, even though it claimed the driver was not responsible. There was no necessity for payment of the said - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26443 MFA No. 3531 of 2014 amount. On this ground, it was held that the driver of the KSRTC bus was also responsible for the accident and his responsibility is more. Hence, the Tribunal has considered the negligence of the driver of KSRTC bus as 80%. 12. Undisputedly, the drivers of both vehicles were not examined by the respondents. Therefore, it is difficult to determine with certainty who is reliable person to speak on the fact of the accident. Especially the driver of the private bus is a competent witness to state about the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus by its driver. The charge sheet was filed against drivers of both vehicles and according to the investigating officer, both were equally responsible for the accident. That needs to be taken care of by the concerned criminal Court where in the said charge sheet is pending. 13. The only evidence available before this Court is evidence of PW-1 i.e., claimant who was a passenger in the KSRTC bus. In his cross-examination, he has stated that at the time of the accident, the KSRTC bus had already took U-tern to an extent of 75% and the Private bus came from the back side and hit the KSRTC bus. He further stated that driver of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26443 MFA No. 3531 of 2014 KSRTC bus did not give a hand signal prior to turning off the vehicle. It is pertinent to note that the spot of the accident is a highway and straight road. There is a provision to turn the vehicle, wherein the KSRTC driver was taking turn. If 75% of the said bus was already turned prior to the accident, then the question of giving hand signal, indicating that the said bus intended to turn at the said spot does not arise. Since he was a passenger in the KSRTC bus, he did not know whether the indication light was given prior to turning of the vehicle. The competent person to state the said fact is driver of the private bus, who was not examined. Therefore, the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal that the driver of the KSRTC did not give hand signal before turning off the vehicle and the KSRTC paid Rs.5,000/- in Ex gratia payment are not a grounds for holding that driver of KSRTC bus was negligent in driving the bus. On the contrary, such payment is usually made on the humanity ground, normally paid by the corporation to the victim of an accident. The said reasons require interference by this Court. 14. In MFA Nos.4139/2014 and 4196/2014, the tribunal held that the accident occurred due to exclusive negligence of driver of the private party and awarded the compensation. The - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26443 MFA No. 3531 of 2014 said appeals were disposed of by this Court by the judgment dated 15.07.2025. This Court confirmed the said award passed by the Tribunal, although the question to be determined in that case was different. 15. On re-appreciation of the evidence available on record, it can be held that the accident occurred due to negligence of the private bus driver. 16. There is no dispute regarding the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Though the claimant is a party and notice was served on him but he remain unrepresented. Hence, there is no need to reconsider the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 17. For the aforesaid discussions, I proceed to pass following: ORDER i) The Appeal is allowed. ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 31st December 2013, in respect of fastening the liability on the appellant/KSRTC passed in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26443 MFA No. 3531 of 2014 MVC.No.339/2012, by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT-V, Davanagere, is set aside. iii) The accident occurred due to negligence of driver of the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-01/AA-679 belonging to Sharma Travels i.e., respondent No.5. The said vehicle is insured with respondent No.6 which is not in dispute. Therefore, respondent Nos.5 and 6 are jointly and severally liable to pay the entire amount of compensation. iv) The remaining portion of the award is not disturbed. v) Whatever amount deposited by the KSRTC shall be refunded to it. vi) Draw award accordingly. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 CT: BHK