Karnataka High Court
A.P.S.R.T.C vs Sri Arun Krishnamurthy on 15 December, 2020
Bench: Alok Aradhe, H T Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA NO.7663 OF 2016(MV)
C/W
MFA NO.6040 OF 2015(MV)
IN MFA 7663/2016
BETWEEN:
A.P.S.R.T.C.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
R.T.C. Cross Road,
Musheerabad,
Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.
.... Appellant
(By Sri. D.Vijaya Kumar, Adv.)
AND
1. Sri.Arun Krishnamurthy,
S/o M.S.Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at No.202, 1st Cross,
DUO Heights Layout,
Begur, Bangalore-560 009.
2
2. Smt. Virupaksham Umadevi,
W/o V. Venkataram Sastri,
Aged about 59 years,
R/at No.18-1-7-14A,
Ramachandranagar,
K.T.Road, Tirupathi,
Andhra Pradesh-517507.
...Respondents
(By Sri. K.S.Venkataramana, Adv. for R1:
R2 is served)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act
against the judgment and award dated:17.04.2015
passed in MVC No.1893/2014 on the file of the 19th
Additional Small Causes Judge & MACT, Bengaluru,
awarding compensation of Rs.38,37,928/- with
interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its
realization.
IN MFA 6040/2015
BETWEEN:
1. Arun Krishnamurthy,
S/o Late. M.S.Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 34 years,
Residing at No.202, 1st Cross,
DUO Heights Layout,
Begur, Bangalore-560 009.
2. Virupaksham Umadevi,
W/o V. Venkataram Sastri,
Aged about 58 years,
Residing at No.18-1-7-14A,
Ramachandranagar,
K.T.Road,
3
Tirupathi Pin No -500145.
...Appellants
(By Sri.Venkataramana K.S., Adv.)
AND
A.P.S.R.T.C.,
Represented by its Managing Director,
R.T.C. Cross Road, Musheerabad,
Hyderabad- 500 020.
.... Respondent
(By Sri D.Vijaya Kumar, Adv.)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act
against the judgment and award dated: 17.04.2015
passed in MVC No.1893/2014 on the file of the XIX
Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru,
Partly allowing the claim petition for compensation
and seeking enhancement of compensation.
These MFAs Coming on for admission, through
video conference, this day, H.T. Narendra Prasad J.,
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
MFA No.7663/2016 is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for short) whereas MFA No.6040/2015 is filed by the claimants under Section 4 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.04.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Since, both the appeals arise out of the same accident as well as a common judgment, they are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly stated are that on 20.03.2014 at about 5.00 p.m. the deceased Virupaksham Lavanya was proceeding by walk on Thirumala bye-pass road, near Alipiri Depot, RTC bus stand. At that time, APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP-28/Z-3938 came at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed to her from back side. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the hospital.
5
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was aged about 33 years at the time of accident and was working as a Junior Assistant in TTD Devasthanam, Hosur and was earning Rs.26,000/- per month. The claimants claimed compensation.
4. On service of summons, the respondent though served has remained absent and was placed ex- parte.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1, Court Commissioner as PW-2 and got exhibited 9 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. On behalf of respondents, neither any witness was examined nor got marked any document. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned 6 judgment, inter alia, held that the accident has occurred on account of negligence of the driver of the offending bus. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.38,37,928/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Corporation to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed.
6. Mr.D.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the Corporation has contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is an exparte judgment. The Corporation had no opportunity to cross-examine any witnesses of the claimants. Therefore, he sought for remanding the matter to the Tribunal to give one more opportunity to the Corporation to produce documents and adduce evidence on their behalf.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants has contended that the Tribunal has issued 7 notice to the Corporation. Inspite of service of summons, none appeared on behalf of the Corporation. Therefore, the Corporation was placed exparte. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence of the claimants and materials available on record has rightly held that the accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus and directed the Corporation to pay compensation to the claimants. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal filed by the Corporation.
8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
9. The case of the claimants is that on 20.03.2014 at about 5.00 p.m. the deceased Virupaksham Lavanya was proceeding by walk on Thirumala bye-pass road, near Alipiri Depot, RTC bus stand, at that time, APSRTC bus bearing registration 8 No.AP-28/Z-3938 came at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed her from back side. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and immediately she was shifted to TTD Central Hospital, Tirupathi and later she was shifted to Svims Hospital, Tirupathi where she succumbed to the injuries.
To prove the negligence, the claimants have examined three witnesses and produced nine documents. Inspite of service of summons, the respondent did not appear and therefore the Tribunal placed the Corporation exparte and passed the impugned judgment and award. Since the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is an exparte judgment, in the interest of justice and in order to give one more opportunity to the Corporation, the matter requires to be remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration. 9
10. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration. The parties are at liberty to produce documents and adduce evidences. The Tribunal is directed to consider the same and dispose of the claim petition in accordance with law, not later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
The amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE DM/-