Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1381 (KAR)

Krishna v. Managing Director KSRTC

2019-06-21

B.V.NAGARATHNA, K.NATARAJAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : K. Natarajan, J. Though this appeal is listed to consider I.A. No.2 of 2018, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard and disposed off finally. 2. This appeal is filed by the claimants assailing the dismissal of the claim petition filed by them before the Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal', for the sake of convenience) in M.V.C. No.7482 of 2016 dated 25-10-2017. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent. 4. For the sake of convenience, parties herein shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal. 5. Appellants-Claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- inter-alia contending that, on 23-5-2016 at about 8:20 a.m., Subhash K. was proceeding on his motorcycle, bearing Registration No.KA-53/EF-585, on the left side of the road towards Babusabpalya on K.R. Puram hanging bridge. At that time, a K.S.R.T.C. bus, bearing Registration No.KA-07/F-1688, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle from behind. As a result, said Subhash K. fell from the motorcycle; the bus ran over him and went away without stopping. Immediately, the injured was shifted to CMH Hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries. Accordingly, a complaint came to be lodged against the driver of the bus. The claimants, being the parents of the deceased-Subhash K., filed the claim petition claiming compensation on various heads. 6. In pursuance to the notice issued by the Tribunal respondent-K.S.R.T.C., appeared through their counsel, filed statement of objections denying the accident, age, occupation, income of the deceased as false and contended that the K.S.R.T.C. bus was falsely implicated to make a wrongful gain and hence, prayed for dismissing the claim petition. 7. Based upon the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration; i. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Subash K., succumbed to the injuries sustained in vehicular accident alleged to have occurred on 23-05-2016 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing No.KA-07-F-1688? ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom? iii. What order or Award? 8. ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom? iii. What order or Award? 8. To substantiate their claim, second claimant-mother of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and she got marked 17 documents and on behalf of the respondent, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked. 9. By considering the evidence on record, especially, the admission made by P.W.1 in the cross-examination by the respondent's counsel, the Tribunal answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and dismissed the claim petition. Assailing the dismissal of the claim petition, claimants have filed this appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contended that the Tribunal has committed an error while passing the impugned judgment by dismissing the claim petition which is against the oral and documentary evidence adduced and produced by the claimants. There is no discussion in respect of public documents, i.e. complaint, F.I.R., and charge-sheet filed by the Police against the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus. Even in the examination-in-chief, P.W.1 has stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus. Merely because a stray admission was made by P.W.1 in the cross-examination that K.S.R.T.C. bus had not dashed to her son's motorcycle and caused the accident, the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the claim petition. The Tribunal ought to have appreciated the entire evidence, both oral and documents, instead of accepting the stray admission made by P.W.1, who is not an eyewitness to the accident. He further contended that the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased could not have been dismissed. The Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence in entirety. F.I.R. and charge-sheet clearly reveal about the occurrence of the accident. Therefore, he prayed for allowing the appeal and to remand the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that though P.W.1 is not an eyewitness, but she has admitted in the cross-examination that the K.S.R.T.C. bus had not dashed against her son's motorcycle and caused the accident. There is a categorical admission made by P.W.1, which was accepted by the Tribunal which has rightly dismissed the claim petition. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 12. There is a categorical admission made by P.W.1, which was accepted by the Tribunal which has rightly dismissed the claim petition. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 12. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel on both sides and on perusal of the evidence adduced and documents produced by the claimants, the points that arise for our consideration are as under: i. Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition based on the stray admission made by P.W.1 which calls for any interference? ii. What order? 13. The claimants contended that on 23-5-2016 at about 8:20 a.m., their son Subhash K. was proceeding on his motorcycle, bearing Registration No.KA-53/EF-585, on the left side of the road towards Babusabpalya on K.R. Puram hanging bridge. At that time, K.S.R.T.C. bus, bearing Registration No.KA-07/F-1688, came from behind and dashed to the motorcycle, due to which, the rider of the motorcycle fell down and the rear wheel of the bus ran over Subhash K., but the driver of the bus did not stop the bus. Injured was shifted to the Hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries. Complaint came to be filed. Police, after investigation, filed charge-sheet against the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus in question. After framing of issues, second claimant-mother of the deceased filed Affidavit in lieu of evidence. She has narrated about the accident and rash and negligent driving of the K.S.R.T.C. bus by its driver and claimed compensation on various heads. She has marked totally 17 documents. Ex.P1-complaint, Ex.P2-F.I.R., Ex.P6-charge-sheet, Ex.P8-I.M.V. report and Ex.P9-Police Intimation were all produced by the claimants. In the cross-examination, a suggestion was made to P.W.1 and there was an admission by P.W.1, which is as follows: "It is true to suggest that the K.S.R.T.C. bus has not dashed my son's motorcycle and caused the accident." 14. The Tribunal based upon the aforesaid admission made by P.W.1 dismissed the claim petition. The Tribunal has not at all considered the other evidence available on record. The Tribunal based upon the aforesaid admission made by P.W.1 dismissed the claim petition. The Tribunal has not at all considered the other evidence available on record. In the examination-in-chief, P.W.1 has stated that accident had occurred due to negligent driving of the K.S.R.T.C. bus and the same is reflected in the F.I.R., compliant, charge-sheet and other Police documents, but the Tribunal blindly accepted the stray admission made by P.W.1 and lost sight of remaining cross-examination and the Police documents, where P.W.1 has denied the suggestions and also the admission made by R.W.1 in the cross-examination that he was, indeed, the driver of the offending vehicle on the date of the accident. This sentence of admission was not looked into by the Tribunal. Complaint made before Police also goes to show that, after the accident, the K.S.R.T.C. bus ran over the deceased and went away without stopping. These aspects ought to have been considered by the Tribunal by taking all the evidence as a whole and not taking the stray admission of P.W.1. Therefore, we are unable to accept the findings of the Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition. Hence, it is required to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded for fresh consideration to read the entire evidence as a whole for giving fresh findings. 15. In the result, appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to re-adjudicate the same in light of the observations made above. 16. Liberty is reserved to both parties to let-in additional evidence, if any. 17. The Tribunal shall dispose of the claim petition in accordance with law. 18. Parties to bear their respective costs. In view of the disposal of the appeal, I.A. No.2 of 2018 also stands disposed.