SMT. LAXMIBAI versus KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 747 · Decided: 11-05-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA, SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. LAXMIBAI 
v. 
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, 
BANGALORE 
MAY I I, 2001 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 : 
A 
B 
Karnataka State Road Transpoi"J Corporation-Bus driven in high C 
speed and in a rash and negligent manner-Do01: glass broken due to stone 
throw-Broken glass piece hitting a travelling passenger in eye-Injury 
resulting in visual disability-Claim-Oral and documentary evidence 
supporting the case of appellant-Respondent c-orporation withholding 
documenta1y evidence in its possession-Tribunal gave a finding that the bus D 
was involved in the accident and awarding compensation-High Court setti11g 
aside the award and holding that bus was not involved in the accident-
Appeal before Supreme Court-Held the Tribunal was quite justified in 
recording a finding that the bus was involved in the accident-The approach 
-lo. 
of the High Court was technical and thrust was wrong in appreciating tl/e 
evidence inasmuch as it was on niceties.-The impugned judgment of the E 
High Court is set aside-The judgment and award ?£the Tribunal is yestored'. . 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3868 of2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.1 I .99 of the Karnataka High 
Court in M.F.A. No. 2873 of 1997. 
F 
V.N. Raghupathy for the Appellant. 
P.R. Ramasesh for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
G 
Leave granted. 
This appeal is directed against the judgment ar1d award passed by' the 
High Court of Karnataka and the claimant is the appellant. The appellant was 
travelling in a KSRTC bus bearing No. CAF 3590 on 26.2. I 989. The bus was H 
747 
748 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[200 I] 3 S.C.R. 
A driven in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner; when the bus 
reached Ningadahalli village, passed through a pit on the road, the appellant 
sustained an injury on right eye as a brok.en glass piece of windo-pane hit 
her eye resulting in visual disability to the extent of 35%. She filed a claim 
petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation. 
B The Tribunal passed an award granting Rs. 53,500 alongwith interest @ 9%. 
On Appeal by the respondent, the High Court by the impugned judgment set 
aside the award passed by the tribunal. Hence this appeal. 
The defence of the respondent before the Tribunal was that the said 
bus was not at all involved in the accident. The Tribunal on the basis of 
C evidence recorded a finding that the bus was involved in the accident. Before 
the High Court, the only question that came up for consideration was whether 
the motor accident occurred 11t all as alleged. 
The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Tribunal, on the 
basis of evidence, both oral and documentary produced in support of the 
D case of the appellant and withholding of the documentary evidence by the 
respondent was right in holding that the bus was involved in the accident; 
the High Court gave undue emphasis to technicalities and niceties and arrived 
at a wrong conclusion that the bus was not involved in the accident. The 
learned counsel for the respondent argued supporting the impugned judgment. 
E 
F 
The appellant (PW-1)1 one Ramchandra Gandhale (PW3), an independent 
witness who was travelling in the said bus, have spoken in support of the 
claim. Exbt. P/4 is the case-sheet which shows that the appellant was admitted 
in the hospital on 27.2: 1989. History in the case-sheet reads: 
/ 
"While travelling in a Bus, Bus door glass broken due to stone throw 
and glass pieces fallen in right eye two days back."· 
The Tribunal found that the respondent did not produce copies of the 
log-sheet and control charts to show that the bus in question was not plied 
on that road on the date of the aceident and the said bus was not involved. 
G Thus on a proper appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal was quite justified 
in recording a finding that the said bus was involved in the accident. But we 
find that the approach of the High Court was wrong in appreciating the 
evidence in as much as it was technical and thrust was on niceties. 
When there were both oral and documentary evidence supporting the 
H case of the appellant, which was accepted by the Tribunal, in our view, the 
SMT. LAXMll3AI v. K.S.R.T.C. BANGALORE 
749 
High Court Clearly committed an error in reversing the judgment and award A 
of the Tribunal particularly when the respondent withheld the documentary 
evidence in its possession. Th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.