Karnataka HC Debunks RTC's Contrary Actions In Defending Bus Driver Before Motor Claims Tribunal But Taking Disciplinary Action Against Him

The Karnataka High Court recently said that a Road Transport Corporation cannot take different stands in respect of a road accident involving its driver before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal and in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the driver for the same incident.A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “If any accident occurs, in pursuance of which the Corporation were to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a driver. The Corporation cannot take a different stand in a claim proceeding filed in MVC matters.” It added “The Corporation being a government entity and a State under the Constitution is required to be a model litigant. A model litigant cannot take two contradictory stands, on the one hand, contending that the driver was driving in a proper manner, virtually certifying the driver's conduct and driving abilities and, on the other hand, initiate proceedings against a driver for rash and negligent driving by contending that there is a misconduct.” The Divisional Controller, NWKRTC had approached the court challenging an order passed by the labour court which had allowed the application filed by driver Hussainsab and set aside the dismissal order passed against him. During the hearing the court made an enquiry with the counsel for the Road transport corporation about its stand taken in the motor vehicle claim case initiated by the claimants of the deceased. The counsel informed that the Road Transport Corporation had taken a stand that the respondent-driver was driving in a proper manner and the fault was that of the rider of the motorcycle. The said contention was not accepted by the MVC Court, and the award came to be passed on 20.6.2014 which was challenged by the Road Transport Corporation only on the aspect of quantum before this Court, which appeal came to be dismissed. The court said, “The stand that is to be taken by the Corporation has to be uniform, it is always open to the Corporation to prosecute a driver for rash and negligent driving but at the same time, the Corporation would have to act fairly and in a Motor Vehicle Claim Petition, not contend that there was no fault on part of the driver, but accept that the driver was driving rashly and negligently on account of disciplinary proceeding having already been initiated against the driver.” It then held, “In the present matter, the stand having been taken before the MVC Court that the driver was driving properly and this stand not having been changed even after disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the driver on 24.01.2014, the proceedings before the MVC Court having come to a conclusion on 20.06.2014, I am of the considered opinion that the contradictory stand taken by the Road Transport Corporation is not sustainable and is in fact malafide.” Accordingly it dismissed the petition and confirmed the labour court order.Appearance: Advocate Prashant S Hosmani for Petitioner.Advocate Chetan L Limbikai for Respondent.Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 92Case Title: The Divisional Controller AND Hussainsab. Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 148260 OF 2020Click Here To Read/Download Order

Karnataka HC Debunks RTC's Contrary Actions In Defending Bus Driver Before Motor Claims Tribunal But Taking Disciplinary Action Against Him

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mustafa Plumber

Karnataka HC Debunks RTC's Contrary Actions In Defending Bus Driver Before Motor Claims Tribunal But Taking Disciplinary Action Against Him

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers