SRI N ARUN KUMAR v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2018) 5 SCC 656 and requested & Ors.

SRI N ARUN KUMAR S/O NARAYANASWAMY R/O JANNAGHATTA VILLAGE AND POST KOLAR TALUK AND DISTIRCT-563 126. …APPELLANT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA .N., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 06.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.4473/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT, BENGALURU(SCCH-15), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,96,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. HC-KAR - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:40672 MFA No. 6708 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010389272017 THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON

07.08.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), against the judgment and award dated 06.02.2017 passed by the XIII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.4473 of 2015, whereby the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.3,96,500/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and directed the KSRTC to pay the amount within one month.

#2. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant- KSRTC filed I.A. No.3 of 2017 on 28.08.2017 for receiving true copy of sketch prepared on 09.05.2015 and requested this Court to receive the same and to remand the matter. Considering their arguments, this Court in an order dated

03.08.2026 received the document and remanded the matter HC-KAR - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:40672 MFA No. 6708 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010389272017 with a direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the same afresh by considering the evidence to be adduced by the KSRTC.

#3. Respondent-claimant filed a memo for being spoken to on 04.08.2026 and stated that copy of the IA was not served upon him and the matter was remanded in his absence. Therefore, requested this Court to hear him.

#4. When the matter was posted for hearing on

03.08.2026, the respondent opposed the receiving of the document and requested the Court to set aside the order. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others reported in (2018) 5 SCC 656 and requested the court to dispose of the matter on merits. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon Mangla Ram case, supra, wherein it is stated as follows:

#31. Be that as it may, the next question is whether the Tribunal was justified in concluding that the appellant was also negligent and had contributed equally, which finding rests only on the site map (Ext. 2) indicating the spot where the motorcycle was lying after the accident? HC-KAR - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:40672 MFA No. 6708 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010389272017

#32. We find substance in the criticism of the appellant that the spot where the motor vehicle was found lying after the accident cannot be the basis to assume that it was driven in or around that spot at the relevant time. It can be safely inferred that after the accident of this nature in which the appellant suffered severe injuries necessitating amputation of his right leg above the knee level, the motorcycle would be pushed forward after the collision and being hit by a high speeding jeep. Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court has found that the spot noted in the site map, one foot wrong side on the middle of the road was the spot where the accident actually occurred. However, the finding is that as per the site map, the motorcycle was found lying at that spot. That cannot be the basis to assume that the appellant was driving the motorcycle on the wrong side of the road at the relevant time. Further, the respondents did not produce any contra evidence to indicate that the motorcycle was being driven on the wrong side of the road at the time when the offending vehicle dashed it. In this view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant contributed to the occurrence of the accident by driving the motorcycle on the wrong side of the road, is manifestly wrong and cannot be sustained.”

#5. Therefore, the memo for being spoken to filed by learned counsel for respondent is allowed and the order passed in I.A. No.3 of 2017 by this court on 03.08.2026 is recalled, as no notice was given to other side from 2017 to 2026. HC-KAR - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:40672 MFA No. 6708 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010389272017

#6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the entire record.

#7. Managing Director of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal has filed this appeal and mainly contended that their driver deposed that accident occurred only due to the rash and negligence of the rider of the motorcycle/petitioner. He came abruptly to the right side of the road. The driver took the bus to the left side of the road and stopped the bus. Even then, the rider of the motorcycle lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the front right side bumper and caused the accident. As such, the accident occurred only because of the rash and negligence of the rider of the motorcycle/petitioner. But the Tribunal failed to appreciate the facts properly. It is contended that the petitioner has not produced the sketch deliberately. They filed Exhibit P2-spot mahazar and it clearly shows that accident occurred in the middle of the road and it is supported by sketch prepared by police. As such, they filed an application for receiving of the sketch as additional document. The appellant- HC-KAR - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:40672 MFA No. 6708 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010389272017 KSRTC further disputed that Tribunal has taken the income of the petitioner as Rs.7,000/- per month without any basis and granted Rs.1,97,000/- towards loss of future income which is on higher side. Tribunal has also considered 13% disability. Thus, requested this Court to set aside the order of the Tribunal.

#8. The Tribunal observed that, on 08.05.2015, while petitioner was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 01/EU-7997 and reached Meccee Circle of Bangarapet circle road, the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-07/F-1707 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle. As a result, he sustained injuries. Case was registered against the driver of the bus and Exhibit P4 charge sheet is filed against him under Sections 279 and Section 338 IPC. KSRTC has examined the driver as RW1, who stated that accident occurred only due to the over speed of the petitioner who lost control over the motorcycle and he himself dashed against front right side bumper of the bus. But the Tribunal observed that the evidence of RW1 is oral evidence and it is not supported by Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P4 and HC-KAR - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:40672 MFA No. 6708 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010389272017 accordingly, held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the bus.

#9. The accident occurred on 08.05.2015. Claim petition was filed in the year 2015 and disposed of in the year 2017. The appellant–KSRTC though disputed the negligence of the petitioner, has not filed the sketch or not called for the Investigating Officer to file the same. But, after the disposal of the matter before the Tribunal, they filed the present appeal in the year 2017 and filed an application for receiving of the sketch as an additional document. Though it was mentioned in the appeal grounds, copy of the I.A. was not served to the other side, now, it cannot be received and considered at this stage. The Tribunal has rightly considered all the aspects and fixed the liability against the appellant-KSRTC. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said finding.

#10. In the result, appeal is dismissed, confirming the award of the Tribunal. The KSRTC might have deposited 50% of the compensation at the time of filing of the appeal. Therefore, they are directed to deposit the balance amount along with HC-KAR - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:40672 MFA No. 6708 of 2017 CNR: KAHC010389272017 interest within one month from the date of this order. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on it. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70