VASANT v. NWKRTC, GOKUL

SRI. VASANT, S/O GOOLAPPA KARI AGE 41 YEARS, OCC: CONDUCTOR R/O HIREHONNALLI VILLAGE TQ. KAALGHATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD. (BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADV.) .. RESPONDENT THIS MFA CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC R/W SEC.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 AGAINST 1 2 THE JUDGMENT AN DAAWRD DATED 07/8//2008 PASSED IN MVC NO.101/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE SECOND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT HUBLI AT HUBLI AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,40,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT. IN MFA NO.20033/2009 BETWEEN: VASANT, S/O GOOLAPPA KARI AGE 44 YEARS, OCC: KSRTC CONDUCTOR R/O HIREHONNALLI VILLAGE TQ. KAALGHATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD. (BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADV.) AND: 1. NWKRTC, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

2. SELF INSURANCE FUND, NWKRTC, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI. .. APPELLANT (BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, ADV.) .. RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07/8/2008 PASSED IN MVC NO.101/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE SECOND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT HUBLI AT HUBLI PARTLY ALLOWING THE AN DSEEKING CLAIMPETITION ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. COMPENSATION FOR THIS MFA CROB AND MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING 2 3 JUDGMENT This appeal and cross-objection arise out of the judgment passed in MVC No.101/2005 on the file of MACT, Hubli. The appeal, is by the claimant before Tribunal whereas the cross appeal is filed by respondents before the Tribunal.

2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under: The claimant before the Tribunal is none other than the conductor of KSRTC and inmate of bus bearing No.KA 25/F-1515 at the relevant time of the accident. According to him on 11/06/2004 at about 3.15 p.m. he got into the said bus which according to him was full hence, he stood near the front door of the said bus with a view to travel from old bus stand to CBT i.e., central bus stand of Hubli. According to him, when the said bus was proceeding towards CBT, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus, brake was applied suddenly resulting in the claimant/conductor being thrown out of the bus 3 4 causing grievous injuries to his leg and other parts of the body. 3 It is his case that in the said accident, he suffered fracture of right femur and right tibia. In that behalf, he underwent treatment for a period of 17 days as an inpatient in the hospital. Hence, he filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries said to have suffered by him. In the said proceedings, the respondent- NWKRTC entered appearance, filed statement of objections contending that the accident is not caused due to rash and negligent driving by its driver but the accident is due to negligence on the part of the claimant himself who stood near the front door of the bus thereby contributing to the accident being taken place. Though, the said objection was raised by the respondent NWKRTC and its self insurance fund, the Tribunal did not consider the same and allowed the claim petition awarding compensation to the claimant in a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- payable with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. 4 5

4. Being aggrieved by the quantum compensation, claimant has come up in this appeal seeking enhancement whereas the respondents before the Tribunal have come up in the cross-objection contending that the valid objection raised by them stating that there is negligence on the part of the claimant in causing the accident is not considered and therefore, question of awarding compensation is contrary to the pleadings available on record.

5. Heard the counsel appearing for the appellant and as well as the cross objectors who are respondents in the appeal by other parties.

6. On going through the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record with reference to the finding in the judgment impugned, it is clearly seen that there is indeed an error on the part of the Tribunal in not appreciating the pleadings and evidence available on record. Admittedly, in the claim petition itself, the claimant has stated that after getting into the bus, he was 5 6 standing near the front door of the bus. As stated by him, the claimant is also a conductor in NWKRTC. Standing either on the foot board or near the door of the bus is prohibited. Any person who gets into the bus is not expected either to stand near the front door or near the back door or on the foot board of either side. It is in fact the duty of the conductor conducting each bus to intimate every passenger to get into the bus and sit in the place which is meant for the passenger or to stand in a place where they are provided with a requisite standing bar with provision to hold the hanging provided to standing passenger in the bus.

7. The claimant being a conductor himself is aware of the said procedure, in spite of the same, he stood near the front door of the bus and voluntarily exposed to the danger of falling down from the bus while it is in motion. In fact he is also aware that person standing near the door or foot board will not have proper grip to hold themselves in a place where they are standing, thereby 6 7 they would be exposing themselves to risk of falling from the bus and suffer injuries that could be caused. In that view of the matter, the grounds urged by the respondent NWKRTC and its insurance fund in the claim petition is just and proper. Surprisingly, the Tribunal has not looked into the same while awarding compensation to the claimant when admittedly, the claimant himself is a tort feaser in not following the restrictions put on the commuters in either not standing on the foot board or near the front door. Contrary to the rules, he stood near the front door voluntarily exposing himself to the danger resulting in his falling down from the bus.

8. In that view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal in holding that the claimant is entitled to receive compensation from the respondent-corporation itself is wrong and consequently allowing the claim petition is erroneous. In that view of the matter, the appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation is required to be dismissed. So far as the cross-objection is 7 8 concerned, in the light of the aforesaid finding, the cross- objection filed by the insurer is allowed and consequently, the compensation awarded to the claimant in MVC No.101/2005 on the file of MACT, Hubli, who is conductor in the NWKRTC bus is set aside.

9. In view of the fact that cross appeal filed by the NWKRTC being allowed, the amount deposited by the insurer at the time of filing cross objection is ordered to be released in favour of the NWKRTC. Sd/- JUDGE 8