Karnataka High Court Upholds Compensation Granted To Passenger Who Was Injured Due To Rash Driving By Bus Driver On Road Bumps

The Karnataka High Court recently upheld an order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal which granted compensation to a teacher who suffered injuries to her hand and elbow, because the driver of the bus drove in a rash and negligent manner on the road humps.

A single judge, Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha dismissed the appeal filed by the Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and upheld the tribunal order dated 29-10-2022, by which a compensation of Rs 6,60,100 was awarded to Shyamala B.

The court said, “The compensation that is granted under all heads is reasonable. The order of the Tribunal discloses discussion on each and every aspect of the case. This Court therefore is of the view that the compensation that is granted by the Tribunal is highly justifiable. Thus, there are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Tribunal.”

The claimant before the Tribunal had contended that on 30.10.2016 while she was traveling in the bus, the driver drove in a rash manner on the road humps, and due to repeated jumps of the bus, the right elbow of the respondent rubbed on the glass and iron portion of the window causing crush injury and comminuted fracture of her arm, coupled with dislocation of elbow joint.

In appeal, the Corporation submitted that the version projected by the respondent (Shyamala) is false since the respondent was putting her elbow outside the bus through the window opening negligently, due to which her elbow hit a vehicle, causing injuries.

The appeal was opposed by the claimant, submitting that she sustained injuries only because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant, and she established her version in clear terms before the Tribunal, leading to the award of compensation.

Findings:

Rejecting the argument of the appellant, the court said “No material whatsoever was produced by the appellant which gives details of the vehicle which hit the elbow of respondent. If two vehicles come so close to each other which is impermissible under law, one of them would be at fault. If the driver of the other vehicle, as contended by the appellant, was at fault, the driver of the appellant, who was on wheels at the time of the accident or the conductor present therein ought to have complained the matter to the competent authority immediately after the accident or soon thereafter. However, no such complaint was given by any of the employees of the appellant including its officials.”

It observed that taking a plea does not ipso facto mean that the said plea is required to be considered by the Court. Only when convincing material in the form of evidence is produced to establish the plea taken will the same be considered.

The court held that in the case on hand, there is no material on record in proof of the version of the appellant regarding the manner in which the respondent sustained injuries.

It added, “On the other hand, by all the evidence produced the respondent succeeded in establishing her version. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal did not err in fastening liability upon the appellant and ordering the appellant to pay the compensation as ordered.”

Upholding the compensation award, the court said “The respondent succeeded in establishing that she sustained bone deep injury over right lower arm, comminuted fracture of lower end of humerus and upper end of ulna, dislocation of elbow joint, dislocation of superior radio ulna joint with loss of skin and soft tissue. The respondent also established that she underwent open reduction and internal fixation with 'K' wire and external fixator and that wound debridement and skin drafting was done. The compensation that is granted under all heads is reasonable.”

Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal.

Appearance: Advocate G Lakshmeesh Rao for Appellant.

Advocate Sandesh Shetty T for Respondent

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 142

Case Title: Divisional Controller AND Shyamala B

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.785 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order