Bangalore District Court
Jayalakshmi vs K.S.R.T.C on 24 October, 2024
KABC020220532023
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF OCTOBER 2024
PRESENT: SRI.KUMARA.S (B.A., LL.B)
VII Addl. SCJ and ACJM,
Member, MACT-3, Bengaluru.
M.V.C.No.4905/2023
Petitioner : Smt.R.Jayalakshmi,
W/o late Thirupathi,
Aged about 44 years,
R/A # 481, Maskum Block,
1st Street, Bangarpet,
Andersonpet,
Kolar - 563 113.
(By Sri.R.Chandrashekhar,
Advocate)
V/s
Respondent : The Managing Director,
Karnataka State Road Transportation
Corporation,
Transport House,
Central Office,
KH Road,
Shanthinagar,
Bangalore - 560 027.
(SCCH-3) 2 M.V.C.No.4905/2023
Owner of the KSRTC Bus bearing
No.KA-07-F-1461
(By Sri.M.S.Basavaraju, Advocate)
*******
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this claim petition against respondents U/Sec 166 of M.V. Act 1988 seeking compensation in respect of death of the deceased Sri.Rakesh.T S/o late Thirupathi, who died in Motor Vehicle Accident.
02. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is as under:
On 02.06.2023 at about 03.45 p.m when the deceased Rakesh.T was returning from work on Pulsar Motor Bike bearing No.KA-04-HU-3438 along with his friend Ajaya Kumar, by riding slowly, cautiously, from BEML on KGF - Bangarpet Main Road. When they reached in front of Batagangamma Temple, KGF, at that time a KSRTC Bus bearing No.KA-07-F-1461 came from KGF towards BEML, at very high speed, in rash and negligent manner, overtaking other vehicle, came and hit the Pulsar Bike of the deceased. Due to this the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. In particular the Rakesh's leg was cut off into two pieces and immediately he was (SCCH-3) 3 M.V.C.No.4905/2023 shifted to Government hospital, Kolar, wherein after first aid treatment, he was referred to R.L. Jalappa hospital, Kolar. Inspite of best treatment, he was succumbed to the injuries on 02.06.2023 at about 11.24 p.m. The petitioner has spent Rs.2,00,000/-
towards transportation of body, funeral and obsequies ceremonies. Prior to accident the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged about 21 years and was Operator (trainee) at BEML and getting stipend of Rs.25,000/- p.m and was contributing entire amount to the family. The petitioner is the mother of the deceased. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the widow petitioner was under mental shock and sufferings and lost love and affection of her son and her life has become dark and miserable. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending KSRTC Bus and in this regard the BEML Nagar Police have registered a case against driver of the said KSRTC Bus. The respondent being the owner- cum-insurer of the offending KSRTC Bus, is liable to pay compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a with costs.
03. On service of notice, the respondent has appeared before the tribunal through its counsel and filed written statement.
(SCCH-3) 4 M.V.C.No.4905/2023
04. The respondent in its written statement has denied the entire case of the petitioner and further contended that there was no any rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing No.KA-07-F-1461 and that rider of the Motor Cycle rode the same in rash and negligent manner and which has resulted in the alleged accident. On the contrary, this respondent submits that on the date and time of the alleged accident the bus in question was on its schedule trip from Bangarapete to KGF and the bus was being driven by its driver slowly and cautiously, on the left side of the road by observing all the traffic rules and regulations and while so proceeding on KGF Bangarapete Main Road, in front of Batagangamma Temple, at that point of time, the deceased came on Motor Cycle bearing No.KA-04-HU-3438 from the cross road along with a pillion rider and both of them without wearing the helmet, riding the same in rash and negligent manner with terrific speed and enter on main road, even without observing the vehicular on the main road, but due to over speed, lost the control and dashed against the right side body of the bus near the back wheels and caused the accident, the deceased himself who wholly and solely responsible for the accident, hence this respondent is not liable to pay any (SCCH-3) 5 M.V.C.No.4905/2023 compensation to the petitioner and denied that petitioner is the legal representative and dependent on the deceased and also denied age, income, occupation of the deceased and expenses incurred by the petitioner. The compensation claimed is highly excessive, exorbitant. Hence, pray for dismiss the petition against this respondent with costs.
05. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the following Issues have been framed:-
ISSUES
01. Whether petitioner prove that she is the LRs/dependents of deceased Sri.Rakesh.T?
02. Whether petitioner prove that deceased Sri.Rakesh.T was died in RTA arising out of the accident alleged to have been taken place on 02.06.2023 at about 3.45 p.m, in front of Betaganamma Temple, KGF Bangarpete Main Road, KGF, due to rash and negligence driving of KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA07F1461 as alleged in the petition?
03. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount & from whom?
04. What order or award?
06. The petitioner in order to prove her case, she herself got examined as PW.1 and got marked 16 documents as Ex.P.1 to 16 and closed her side evidence. On the otherhand, the driver of the (SCCH-3) 6 M.V.C.No.4905/2023 respondent corporation is examined as RW.1 and got marked 4 documents as Ex.R.1 to 4 and closed his side evidence.
07. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent and perused the records.
08. My findings on the above Issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Negative
Issue No.3 : In the Negative
Issue No.4 : As per final order
for the following:-
REASONS
09. Issues No.1 and 2:- Since these two issues are interconnected to each other and in order to avoid repetition of facts and appreciation of evidence on record, these two issues are taken together for common consideration and discussion.
10. The petitioner in order to prove her case, she herself is examined as PW.1 and in her chief-examination evidence she has reiterated the petition averments therein. During the course of (SCCH-3) 7 M.V.C.No.4905/2023 cross-examination by the respondent counsel she admits that she has not witness the accident and accident was occurred on KGF - Bangarpet Main Road and on the date of accident her son came from Bangarpet towards KGF and there was a curve near Batagangamma Temple and denied to the suggestion that the person riding the Motor Cycle in high speed and suddenly took from left side to right side and dashed against the back side wheel of the bus and also admits that complainant was his sons' friend uncle and also admits that she has not produced any documents to show that her son was worked at BEML, KGF and also admits that she has also not produced any salary certificate or bank statement to show her son was earning Rs.25,000/- p.m.
11. Apart from the oral evidence, the petitioner has got marked 16 documents as Ex.P.1 to 16. Ex.P.1 is copy of FIR filed by the BEML Nagar Police against driver of offending KSRTC Bus for his rash and negligent driving and caused death of deceased. Ex.P.2 is copy of Complaint lodged against driver of offending KSRTC Bus. Ex.P.3 is copy of Requisition given to the Court by the IO. Ex.P.4 is further statement of complainant. Ex.P.5 is copy of Spot Mahazar. Ex.P.6 is copy of Sketch which indicates that the accident was (SCCH-3) 8 M.V.C.No.4905/2023 occurred on the side of the road. Ex.P.7 is copy of IMV report which shows involvement of both vehicles in the accident and front side of the Motor Cycle was heavily damaged and rear right side wheel mudguard and rear right side body of the KSRTC Bus was damaged, which shows that there is a rashness and negligence on the part of the deceased himself who rode his Motor Cycle in high speed and negligent manner and dashed against rear right side body and mudguard of the right side of the bus. Ex.P.8 is copy of Inquest Panchanama of deceased Rakesh.T. Ex.P.9 is copy of Post mortem report of deceased Rakesh.T wherein it is stated that death was due to crush injury sustained to right lower limb. Ex.P.10 is copy of Charge sheet which discloses that the Investigation Officer has submitted Charge sheet against driver of the KSRTC Bus for his rash and negligent driving and caused accident and caused death of the deceased. Ex.P.11 and 12 are SSLC marks card and Engineering marks card of the deceased, which shows he was a Engineering student. Ex.P.13 is the copy of Aadhaar card of deceased Rakesh.T. Ex.P.14 is the copy of PAN card of deceased Rakesh.T. Ex.P.15 is copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner and Ex.P.16 is the copy of PAN card of petitioner. On perusal of Ex.P.11 to 16, it is clear that the petitioner (SCCH-3) 9 M.V.C.No.4905/2023 is the mother of the deceased and she is legal representative and dependent of the deceased..
12. Further, to disprove the case of the petitioner, the driver of the KSRTC Bus is examined as RW.1 and in his chief-examination evidence he has reiterated the written statement averments. During the course of cross-examination by the petitioner counsel he admits that as on the date of accident he took his offending bus from KGF depot and denied to the suggestion that he himself drive the bus in rash and negligent manner and dashed against hind side of the Motor Cycle and caused accident and admits that as per Ex.P.7 IMV report rear right side wheel mudguard and rear right side body of the bus were damaged and denied to the suggestion that Police have filed Charge sheet against him due to his rash and negligent driving of the bus and also stated that as per Photographs produced by him there was a damage sustained to back side of the Motor Cycle and he volunteers that said damage was due to fell on the Motor Cycle on the road.
13. Apart from the oral evidence, the RW.1 got marked 4 documents as Ex.R.1 to 4. Ex.R.1 is copy of Complaint given to jurisdiction Police, wherein he stated that the rider of the Motor Cycle was rode the (SCCH-3) 10 M.V.C.No.4905/2023 Motor Cycle in rash and negligent act, came in right side and dashed against the bus and said complaint was lodged on the date of accident itself. Ex.R.2 is copy of Complaint given to Superintendent of Police, KGF against the jurisdictional Police for not registering the case against the rider of the Motor Cycle. Ex.R.3 is Endorsement issued by Circle Inspector, KGF. Ex.R.4 is Photographs of accident spot and Bus and Motor Cycle and Ex.R.4(a) is CD of said photographs, which clearly goes to show that the rider of the Motor Cycle had rode his Motor Cycle in rash and negligent manner and came in the wrong side and dashed against the KSRTC bus. Hence, right side wheel mudguard and rear right side body of the bus were damaged and in case if the KSRTC bus has dashed to the Motor Cycle on its hind side, certainly there should be damaged to the hind portion of the Motor Cycle and heavy damage caused to the hind side of the Motor Cycle. But there is no such damage found on back side of Motor Cycle but front side of Motor Cycle was heavily damaged and no damages found to front portion of KSRTC bus.
14. In the claim petition before the tribunal is an action in tort and the injured or the legal representatives of the deceased have to establish by preponderance of evidence that there was no (SCCH-3) 11 M.V.C.No.4905/2023 negligence on the part of the injured or deceased and they are not responsible for the accident.
15. The learned counsel for the claimant would submit that jurisdictional Police after investigation have filed Charge sheet against the bus driver. Therefore, the tribunal have to presume that the accident has occurred in the manner stated by the claimant. The filing of Charge sheet U/Sec 173(5) Cr.PC may give raise to a presumption. However, that is not decisive on the issue. If the Court finds evidence adduced by parties and material placed by parties are sufficient to hold that Charge sheet filed by Police is a fabricated document, the claim petition cannot be sustained. The law is fairly well settled that Court has to consider documents filed U/Sec 173(5) Cr.PC, in addition to the evidence adduced by parties before tribunal. The Court should not be swayed away by the documents filed U/Sec 173(5) Cr.PC.
16. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following citations:-
01. (2005) 6 SCC 172 in a case between National Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Prembai Patel and others, (SCCH-3) 12 M.V.C.No.4905/2023
02. (2014) 13 SCC 254 in a case between Lachoo Ram and others V/s Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation,
03. MFA No.2829/2009 (MV) in a case between Manju V/s Mathue.K.P and another,
04. MFA No.2921/2012 (MV) in a case between Smt.Vijayalakshmi.K.N and others V/s Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation,
05. ILR 2009 KAR 3562 in a case between Veerappa and another V/s Siddappa and another
17. On perusal of the above said decisions relied upon by the respondent, it is aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
18. On perusal of the Photographs at Ex.R.4 and Sketch at Ex.P.6 and IMV report at Ex.P.7 and evidence of PW.1 and as rightly argued by the respondent counsel, the driver of the KSRTC bus was proceeding from KGF to Bangarpet. But the rider of the Motor Cycle came in the extreme right side of the road and dashed against rear right side wheel mudguard and rear right side body of the KSRTC bus. Hence, it cannot be held that the bus itself came in right side to commit an offence. Though PW.1 has been examined, but she is not a eye-witness to the accident and no eye-witness has been examined by the petitioner.
(SCCH-3) 13 M.V.C.No.4905/2023 Though, the PW.1 is examined, she only deposed that it is KSRTC bus, it came in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. The oral evidence is not a deciding factor, the oral evidence is corroborated with the materials namely Ex.P.6 Sketch, Ex.P.7 IMV report and Ex.R.4 Photographs. Therefore, on careful perusal of materials available on record and despite the materials are available in favour of the KSRTC bus, question of filing Charge sheet would not arise against its driver. Therefore, the petitioner has proved that deceased was her son, but she has failed to prove that deceased Rakesh.T was died in RTA 02.06.2023 at about 03.45 p.m, in front of Batagangamma Temple, KGF, due to rash and negligent act of driving of KSRTC Bus bearing No.KA-07-F-1461 by its driver. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative and Issue No.2 is answered in the negative.
19. Issue No.3:- In view of the reasons assigned on Issue No.2, the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus has not been proved and establishes for the satisfaction of the tribunal and materials on record discloses that deceased who is the rider of the Motor Cycle was himself riding the same in rash and negligent manner and came to his extreme right of the (SCCH-3) 14 M.V.C.No.4905/2023 road and dashed against rear right side wheel mudguard and rear right side body of the KSRTC bus and sustained fatal injuries and died. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation as sought in the petition. Accordingly, this Issue is answered in the negative.
20. Issue No.4: In view of the above reasoning and discussions to the above Issues No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec 166 of the M.V. Act, 1989 is hereby dismissed on without costs.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 24th day of October, 2024) Digitally signed KUMARA by KUMARA S Date:
S 2024.10.30
10:00:41 +0530
(KUMARA.S)
VII Addl. Judge and ACJM,
Bengaluru.
(SCCH-3) 15 M.V.C.No.4905/2023
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined for the petitioner:
P.W.1 Jayalakshmi
List of documents marked on behalf of the
petitioner:
Ex.P.1 True copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 True copy of Complaint.
Ex.P.3 True copy of Requisition filed by the I.O.
Ex.P.4 True copy of further statement of witness
Arivalagan
Ex.P.5 True copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.6 True copy of Sketch
Ex.P.7 True copy of IMV report
Ex.P.8 True copy of Inquest Panchanama
Ex.P.9 True copy of Post mortem report
Ex.P.10 True copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P.11 Notarized copy of SSLC marks Card of
deceased Rakesh
Ex.P.12 Notarized copy of ITI certificate of deceased
Rakesh
Ex.P.13 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of deceased
Rakesh
Ex.P.14 Notarized copy of PAN card of deceased
Rakesh
Ex.P.15 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner
Ex.P.16 Notarized copy of PAN card of petitioner
List of witnesses examined for the Respondents:
R.W.1 Ambarisha
(SCCH-3) 16 M.V.C.No.4905/2023
List of documents marked on behalf of the
Respondents:
Ex.R.1 Copy of Complaint to PSI, BEML Police
Station
Ex.R.2 Copy of Complaint given to S.P, KGF
Ex.R.3 Endorsement issued by Circle Inspector, KGF
Ex.R.4 6 Photographs
Ex.R.4(a) CD of photographs
Digitally signed
KUMARA by KUMARA S
Date:
S 2024.10.30
10:00:51 +0530
(KUMARA.S)
VII Addl. Judge and ACJM,
Bengaluru.