Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, Single Bench of  Justice Chillakur Sumalatha, dismissed an appeal filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) challenging a compensation award by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal. The court upheld the tribunal's judgement that the claimant sustained injuries due to the negligent driving of the Corporation's bus driver and affirmed the compensation amount of Rs. 6,60,100.

The appeal was filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant-corporation contested the tribunal's findings, asserting that the injuries resulted from the respondent's own negligence.

Also Read: SEBI Cannot Revisit Concluded Issues Under Same Cause of Action; Principle of Res Judicata Applies : Supreme Court

The respondent, Mrs. Shyamala B., aged 56, filed a compensation claim asserting that she sustained grievous injuries while traveling in a KSRTC bus on October 30, 2016. She alleged that the driver drove the bus negligently over road humps, causing her right elbow to strike against the iron and glass portion of the window, resulting in a comminuted fracture and dislocation of the elbow joint. The Tribunal awarded her Rs. 6,60,100, prompting KSRTC to file the current appeal.

The Corporation argued that it was not liable to pay any compensation, claiming the injuries were caused because the respondent negligently placed her elbow outside the window, which was then hit by an oncoming vehicle. The counsel for the Corporation maintained that although this defense was raised before the Tribunal, it was disregarded without adequate consideration.

The respondent, represented by counsel Sandesh Shetty T., countered that the accident was caused solely by the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. She submitted documents in support of her claim, including: Ex.P.1: Certified copy of the FIR, Ex.P.2: Copy of the complaint, Ex.P.4: IMV report, Ex.P.5: Spot mahazar and Ex.P.8: Charge sheet

She examined herself as PW.1 and reiterated the circumstances of the accident. The KSRTC failed to produce any material evidence supporting its defense that the injury was caused by an external vehicle. The High Court noted the lack of any complaint from the Corporation or its officials about another vehicle being involved.

Justice Chillakur Sumalatha recorded, "If two vehicles come so closure to each other which is impermissible under law, one of them would be at fault. If the driver of the other vehicle, as contended by the appellant, was at fault, the driver of the appellant, who was on wheels at the time of the accident or the conductor present therein ought to have complained the matter to the competent authority immediately after the accident or soon thereafter. However, no such complaint was given by any of the employees of the appellant including its officials."

The court further noted, "Taking a plea does not ipso facto mean that the said plea is required to be considered by the Court. Only when convincing material in the form of evidence is produced to establish the plea taken, the same will be considered." As no such material was presented, the court found no merit in the appellant’s version.

The argument of contributory negligence was also rejected. While the appellant contended that a teacher like the respondent should not have placed her hand outside the bus, the court found that the respondent consistently maintained that the injury was caused internally by the vehicle due to negligent driving over humps. The court observed, "Hence, the aspect of contributory negligence cannot be considered."

On the issue of quantum of compensation, the High Court found that the Tribunal had duly considered all relevant heads of damages, which were:

• Pain and sufferings: Rs. 1,00,000

• Medical and other incidental expenses: Rs. 2,46,000

• Loss of earning during laid-up period: Rs. 38,000

• Loss of future income due to physical disability: Rs. 1,88,100

• Loss of amenities of life and disfigurement: Rs. 40,000

• Attendant, food, nourishment, and conveyance charges: Rs. 23,000

• Future medical expenses: Rs. 25,000

• The total compensation awarded was Rs. 6,60,100.

Also Read: “Refund Due Is a Debt Owed”: Jharkhand HC Slams State for 3-Year Delay, Orders 6% Interest on ₹1.47 Cr Tax Refund

The court acknowledged that the respondent had proved her employment as a teacher earning Rs. 59,149 per month. Despite this, the Tribunal conservatively took the notional income as Rs. 9,500 per month and calculated compensation accordingly. The High Court found this to be reasonable and observed, "The order of the Tribunal discloses discussion on each and every aspect of the case. This Court therefore is of the view that the compensation that is granted by the Tribunal is highly justifiable."

The appeal was dismissed. The compensation award by the Tribunal was upheld in full.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellant: Sri. G. Lakshmeesh Rao, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri. Sandesh Shetty T., Advocate

Case Title: Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Mangaluru Division v. Mrs. Shyamala B.

Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC:12601

Case Number: MFA No. 785 of 2023

Bench: Justice Chillakur Sumalatha

[Read/Download order]