Karnataka High Court
North West Karnataka Transport vs Pushpaja W/O Suhas Prabhu on 10 January, 2014
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
M.F.A.NO.22143/2009 (MV)
BETWEEN:
NORTH WEST KARNATAKA TRANSPORT
CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICE,
HUBLI.
... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. P.R. BENTUR, ADV.,)
AND
1. PUSHPAJA W/O. SUHAS PRABHU
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. H. NO.251,
NEAR SBI, USGAOPONDA,
GOA.
2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.,
LTD., KESHWAPUR,
HUBLI-580023.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHASHANK HEGDE, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
29.01.2009, PASSED IN MVC NO.812/2004, ON THE FILE OF
:2:
THE SECOND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND ADDL.
MACT., HUBLI AT HUBLI PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
N.W.K.R.T.C - Corporation is in appeal questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment and award passed by MACT., Hubli in MVC No.812/2004 dated 29.01.2009, whereunder claim petition filed by Corporation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation of Rs.44,870/- with cost and interest @ 12% per annum for the damages caused to its vehicle namely the bus bearing No.KA-25/F 1566 in a road traffic accident involving lorry bearing registration No.GA-02/V-9004 has been allowed in part and a compensation of Rs.12,870/- with cost and interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded.
2. It is the contention of appellant that Tribunal grossly erred in declining loss of revenue of Rs.4,000/- per day for 8 days, though this fact was not disputed and the :3: vehicle involved in the accident belonging to Corporation was under repair in the garage and it did not ply on the road for 8 days in which it ought to have plied and as such not awarding loss of revenue by the Tribunal is to be set aside and claim petition is to be allowed.
3. Per contra, Sri.Shashank Hegde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Preethi Shashank would support the judgment and award by contending that clause 17 (xvii) of sub Section (2) of Section 72 of M.V.Act, would clearly indicate that while the transport authority issuing permit to a stage carriage would compulsorily incorporate a condition to hold the permit holder to hold a spare vehicle and when the said Section is read along with the rule namely, 69-A which prescribes that the said condition of having a reserve vehicle to be incorporated in the permit was sufficient enough for the Tribunal to reject the contention of the Corporation that it had suffered revenue loss. He would also draw attention of the Court to the evidence of PW1 where he has admitted that spare vehicles :4: are maintained and as such he contends that Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant.
4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for respondents and on perusal of the judgment and award in question as also the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules made thereunder together with the deposition of PW.1 made available by Sri.Shashank Hegde during the course of his arguments, it would emerge that Corporation had stationed its bus having a stage carriage permit bearing Registration No. KA 25/F-1566 at its garage for getting it repair on account of damage caused to it in the road traffic accident that occurred on 30.04.2003. It claimed compensation for revenue loss @ Rs.4,000/- per day for 8 days i.e. Rs.32,000/- which has been declined by the Tribunal on the ground that there is probability of alternative arrangement of spare bus being plied on the road during the period repair and it cannot be ruled out since it is one of the conditions for issue of permit. Sub Section (2) of Section 72 reads as under:
:5:
72. Grant of stage carriage permits.- (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 71, a Regional Transport Authority may, on an application made to it under Section 70, grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modifications as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit:
provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any route or area not specified in the application.
(2) The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a stage carriage of a specified description and may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions, namely-
(i) to (xvi) - XXXX (xvii) The vehicles to be kept as reserve by the holder of the permit to maintain the operation and to provide for special occasions;
5. Rule 69 A of Karnataka Motor Vehicle, Rules 1989, reads as under:
69-A. Maintenance of reserve vehicles.-:6:
The conditions regarding maintenance of reserve vehicles specified in clause (xvii) of sub-
section (2) of Section 72 of the Act, shall be incorporated in every permit granted to a person and the maximum number of reserve vehicles to be maintained with valid permits for such use shall be as specified in the table below:
No. of permits Maximum number of reserve vehicles that can be maintained Up to 4.......... 1 5 to 10....... 2 11 to 20...... 3 20 to 30.... 4 31 to 40....... 5
6. A perusal of the above provisions would clearly indicate that when a stage carriage permit has been issued to a vehicle the authorities would incorporate the condition that permit holder will have to have a spare vehicle or a reserve vehicle for being plied in the route in the eventuality of the vehicle issued with permit breaking down or being :7: stationed for repair or for whatsoever reason if said vehicle is not plied.
7. In the instant case, PW.1 witness examined on behalf of Corporation has clearly admitted that Corporation would maintain the reserve vehicles. To a pointed question in the cross examination as to whether in the route in which the bus involved in the accident was plying any reserve vehicle had plied during these 8 days, he has been unable to answer the question pleading his ignorance. His cross examination on this aspect reads under:
"£ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è J¯Áè ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄPÀÆÌ ºÉaÑ£À UÁrUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß EnÖgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ CAzÀgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁzÀ PÁ®PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢üvÀ gÀ¸ÉÛUÉ ºÉaÑ£À UÁr C¼Àªr À ¸ÀÄvÉÃÛ ªÉ CAzÀgÉ ¨sÁUÀ±BÀ ¤d. C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁzÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¨ÉÃgÉ §¹ì£À NqÁl DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉAiÉÄà E®èªÉÇà £À£U À É UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
8. Thus, it would emerge that Corporation was possession reserve vehicles on the date of accident and as such it was incumbent upon it to establish that in the route where damaged bus was plying that spare vehicles had not been put to use or it has not plied. This has not been done by the Corporation M.V. Act and the Rules would clearly :8: indicate that permit holder is mandatorily required to have a reserve vehicle and in the instant case, PW.1 himself admits that there were reserve vehicles. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal was fully justified in disallowing the claim for award of loss of revenue to the Corporation and there is no infirmity in the order under challenge.
9. For the reasons aforestated, following order is passed:
ORDER
a) Appeal is hereby dismissed.
b) Judgment and award passed in MVC No.812/2004 dated 29.01.2009 by 2nd Addl. Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.) and Addl.
MACT., Hubli is hereby affirmed.
c) No order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE BS