Karnataka HC Rejects Transport Corporation's Plea Against ₹1.1 Crore Accident Compensation, Says Can't Blame Deceased After Disciplining Driver

The Karnataka High Court dismissed Kalyan Karnataka Road Transport Corporation's plea (KKRTC) challenging compensation of Rs 1.1 Crore in a motor accident claim, noting that the corporation suppressed the removal of the driver in disciplinary proceedings over the incident and had yet blamed the deceased for negligence.

The Division Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha observed that the Corporation cannot take the contradictory stand that the negligence was entirely on the part of the deceased victim when it had already expelled or punished its employees in departmental proceedings for their negligence. It thus imposed cost of Rs 25,000 to be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. 

"The action initiated by the Road Transport Corporation, namely Kalyana Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, against its driver and conductor arises out of the very same accident in which the death of the deceased occurred. The Corporation, having conducted disciplinary proceedings and having recorded a finding of culpability against its employees, culminating in orders of removal from service or withholding of increment, cannot now be permitted to contend that the deceased himself was negligent and that such alleged negligence was the proximate cause of his death.

Such a stand is inherently contradictory and legally impermissible. It is a settled principle that a party cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. A party cannot “blow hot and cold” by taking inconsistent stands to suit its convenience, such inconsistent pleas are impermissible in law". 

The Corporation challenged the Tribunal's award dated 14.03.2025, which granted compensation to the family of the deceased passenger. The Corporation's primary contention was that the passenger himself acted negligently by standing at the doorway of a moving bus despite empty seats, and therefore it was not liable.

The court said that the cost imposed ought to be recovered– after an internal enquiry, from the officers who authorised the current litigation. 

The court has also instructed the Managing Director of KKRTC to issue an administrative circular mandating full disclosure of all material facts, including disciplinary proceedings arising out of the same incident in all judicial proceedings.

The High Court also told the Director to fix accountability on officers so that no misleading stands are taken by it before judicial or quasi-judicial forums.

“…Such suppression of material facts and adoption of mutually destructive stands strikes at the sanctity of judicial proceedings. A litigant who approaches the Court must do so with clean hands and must disclose all material facts, failing which such litigant is not entitled to any relief. The present case is a clear instance of the appellant-Corporation attempting to mislead the Court by withholding crucial facts and advancing a case contrary to its own records,” the court stated.

As a state instrumentality coming under the ambit of Article 12 of the constitution, the Corporation should be held to a higher standard of fairness and consistency, the court further opined.

Therefore, the court strictly disapproved the Corporation's attempt before the court to shift the negligence onto the deceased by suppressing the departmental proceedings against employees involved in the accident.

The disciplinary proceedings against the driver and the conductor(expulsion and withholding of one increment permanently each year respectively) only came to light when the court asked the Corporation to file a memo to that effect about the Corporation employees' who were part of the accident.

“…The conduct of the Corporation in filing the present appeal on 09.06.2025, despite having passed orders of removal against the driver and conductor on 05.07.2023 and 23.05.2024 respectively, raises serious concerns. These material facts, which go to the root of the matter, were neither placed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal nor disclosed before this Court at the earliest opportunity. Instead, the Corporation has proceeded on a plea that there was no negligence on its part or on the part of its employees…”, the court explained further about the disparity and termed it as an attempt by the Corporation to 'mislead' the court.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed by the court.

Appearance: Advocate Mahantesh Patil for the appellant, Advocate Sanjeev Patil for the respondents.

Case Title: The Managing Director, KKRTC v. Sunita and Others

Case No: MFA No. 201877 of 2025 (MV-D)

Click Here To Read/ Download Order