Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 3868 of 2001
PETITIONER:
SMT. LAXMIBAI
RESPONDENT:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/05/2001
BENCH:
D.P. MOHAPATRA & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2001 (3) SCR 747
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by" the High
Court of Karnataka and the claimant is the appellant. The appellant \vas
travelling in a KSRTC bus bearing No. CAP 3590 on 26.2,1989. The bus was
"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 art injury on fight eye as a broken 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. 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 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 at 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 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.
The appellant (PW-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 accident and the said bus was not involved.
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.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
When there were both oral and documentary evidence supporting the case of
the appellant, which was accepted by the Tribunal, in our view, the High
Court Clearly committed an error in reversing the judgment and award of the
Tribunal particularly when the respondent withheld the documentary evidence
in its possession. The High court agreed with the Tribunal as far as
quantum of compensation is concerned. Hence, we find it difficult to
sustain the impugned judgment Consequently, we set aside the same and
restore the judgment and award of the Tribunal The appeal is allowed
accordingly. No costs.