- 1 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16946
MFA No. 8170 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MFA NO. 8170 OF 2013 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
OREINTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
ND
JAYALAKSHMI MANSION, 2 FLOOR
TH
RAJKUMAR ROAD, 4 BLOCK
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 560 010
BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER … APPELLANT
(BY SRI.O.MAHESH, ADV.)
AND:
1 . NANJUNDASWAMY, MAJOR
S/O K SHIVALINGAPPA
KSRTC BUS CONDUCTOR
CHIGALLI VILLAGE
HOLEANARASIPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT 573 201
2 . THE MANAGER
KSRTC, MYSORE DIVISION
Digitally signed by
DEPOT MANAGER, KSRTC
HARIKRISHNA V
DEPOT HASSAN 573 201 … RESPONDENTS
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI.SANGAMESH R. B., ADV. FOR R1;
SMT.VIJAYALAKSHMI K., ADV. FOR
SRI.G.SHANKAR GOUD, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 7.06.2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.1/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, MCT, HOLENARASIPURA AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.40,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A.,
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT
WITH COST.
- 2 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16946
MFA No. 8170 of 2013
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 18.03.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the Insurance Company has
challenged the judgment and award dated 07.06.2013
in M.V.C.No.1/2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge
and M.A.C.T., Holenarasipur ('the Tribunal' for short).
2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the
parties shall be referred to as per their status before
the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are, on 27.09.2010 at
about 01:00 p.m., the petitioner being the conductor
of K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing Reg.No.KA-09/F-4089, was
standing behind his bus, observing the incoming
K.S.R.T.C. buses at Mysuru Rural K.S.R.T.C. Bus Stand
at Madikeri Platform. At that time, K.S.R.T.C. bus
bearing Reg.No.KA-42/F-243 came and parked across
K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing Reg.No.KA-09/F-4089. Such
being so, another K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing Reg.No.KA-
- 3 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16946
MFA No. 8170 of 2013
07/F-1411 entered the K.S.R.T.C. bus stand in a rash
and negligent manner and hit against the petitioner,
due to which the petitioner sustained the injuries for
his shoulders and chest. He was treated at B.M.
Hospital, Mysuru under hospitalization for 15 days and
thereafter, he approached the Tribunal for grant of
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the owner of the
K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing Reg.No.KA-07/F-1411.
3(a). Claim was opposed by respondent No.1
(K.S.R.T.C.) on the ground that the bus was insured
with respondent No.2, that policy was in force and
respondent No.2 has to be made as a party.
Subsequently, respondent No.2 was impleaded.
3(b). Respondent No.2 opposed the claim on the
ground that the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing
Reg.No.KA-07/F-1411 was not holding a valid and
effective driving licence. The Tribunal after taking the
evidence and hearing both the parties, by impugned
judgment, allowed the claim petition awarding
- 4 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16946
MFA No. 8170 of 2013
compensation of Rs.40,000/- with 6% interest p.a.
The insurer of the bus has challenged the impugned
judgment in this appeal on various grounds.
4. Heard the arguments of Sri. O. Mahesh,
learned counsel for the Insurance Company,
Sri. Sangamesh. R.B, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Smt. Vijalakshmi. K, learned counsel on behalf of
Sri. G. Shankar Goud, learned counsel for K.S.R.T.C.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company that the bus in question was
not at all involved in the accident; it is elicited in the
cross-examination of the petitioner that the bus
involved in the accident was KA-42/F-243; since the
said bus was not insured, K.S.R.T.C. authorities and
the petitioners in collusion, filed the claim petition
against the Insurance Company and assisted each
other in getting the compensation.
6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner being the conductor of the
- 5 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16946
MFA No. 8170 of 2013
K.S.R.T.C. bus, has no intention to claim the
compensation from the Insurance Company as the
claim was made against K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing
Reg.No.KA-07/F-1411; only upon the direction of the
Court, as the bus was insured, Insurance Company
was impleaded later; the prosecution papers clearly
point out the involvement of the bus in question which
caused the injury to the petitioner; merely mention of
one of the bus number in the wound certificate does
not disable the petitioner from making the claim from
the bus which caused the accident.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for K.S.R.T.C. has
contended that paying a sum of Rs.40,000/- is not a
big amount for the K.S.R.T.C.; since the reason of bus
bearing Reg.No.KA-07/F-1411 was involved in the
accident and it being insured with the Insurance
Company by paying the premium, the Insurance
Company being a public authority, for a small amount
of Rs.40,000/-, has filed this appeal; the records
placed before the Tribunal clearly point out that the
- 6 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16946
MFA No. 8170 of 2013
bus bearing Reg.No.KA-07/F-1411 was one which
came and hit against the petitioner who was standing
behind the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-42/F-243; merely
on the fact that the bus No.KA-42/F-243 is mentioned
in the wound certificate, is not fatal to the case and he
sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed on behalf of both parties and
perused the records.
9. It is a peculiar case where an accident took
place in the Mysuru Rural Bus Stand at Madikeri
platform. No doubt that the petitioner is the conductor
of bus bearing Reg.No.KA-09/F-4089. He was
standing behind the said bus wherein bus bearing
Reg.No.KA-42/F-243 was parked across his bus and
thereafter bus bearing Reg.No.KA-07/F-1411 came and
hit against the petitioner. This aspect has been
clarified in the prosecution papers such as the F.I.R.
and the charge sheet which are available on record as
- 7 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16946
MFA No. 8170 of 2013
per Exs.P4 and P2. The only reliance placed by the
Insurance Company is the entry of bus No.KA-42/F-
243 in the wound certificate marked at Ex.P3. It is
relevant to extract the note made in the wound
certificate:
“hit by a K.S.R.T.C. Bus while
standing at KSRTC suburb bus stand on
27/09/2010 at 12:15 pm - Bus No. KA 42 F
243”
This note never refers that the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-
42/F-243 was hit against the petitioner. As seen from
the evidence on record, the petitioner was standing
behind bus bearing Reg.No.KA-09/F-4089 and across
the said bus, bus bearing Reg.No. KA-42/F-243 came
and parked. Neither of these two buses were on
movement at the time of the accident. The accident
took place only after bus bearing Reg.No.KA-07/F-
1411 entered the bus stand hitting against the
petitioner. There is no substance in the argument
canvassed on behalf of the Insurance Company that
- 8 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16946
MFA No. 8170 of 2013
the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-07/F-1411 was not
involved in the accident.
10. On careful perusal of the evidence of the
Divisional Controller of Mysuru Rural Sub-division of
K.S.R.T.C. who is examined as CW-1 (Sri. Naveen)
points out and asserts that bus bearing Reg.No.KA-
07/F-1411 was the bus which caused the accident.
Ex.C1 is the accident report given by the Traffic
Inspector of Mysuru Rural Bus Stand that the bus
bearing Reg.No.KA-07/F-1411 has caused the
accident. Ex.C2 is the Covering Letter to Ex.C1 report
and Ex.C3 is the sketch indicating the buses bearing
Reg.Nos.KA-09/F-4089, also KA-42/F-243 and KA-
07/F-1411. These are the evidence which clearly
explain that the petitioner was caught in between the
buses bearing Reg.Nos.KA-42/F-243 and KA-07/F-
1411. As at the time of accident, bus No. KA-42/F-243
was stationed, it is the bus No.KA-07/F-1411 which
was moving, the Tribunal has rightly observed and
recorded its finding that fault is on the part of driver of
- 9 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16946
MFA No. 8170 of 2013
the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-07/F-1411. Hence, the
argument canvassed on behalf of the Insurance
Company is not persuasive.
11. The appeal did not challenge the quantum of
compensation assessed, nor the petitioner has filed
any appeal seeking the enhancement of compensation.
Hence, it is not proper to go in-detail about the
compensation awarded to the petitioner. Hence, the
grounds urged in the appeal are devoid of merits. In
the result, the following:
ORDER
dismissed
The appeal is .
SD/-
JUDGE
PA
CT:HS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2