THE MANAGING DIRECTOR vs SUNITA

- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3585-DB
MFA No. 201877 of 2025

HC-KAR
R



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA


KALABURAGI BENCH

RD
DATED THIS THE 23 DAY OF APRIL, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

AND

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201877 OF 2025 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KKRTC, SARIGE SADAN,
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 103.
…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SUNITA W/O LATE VINOD KUMAR MANE,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

2. GOURISHANKAR S/O VINOD KUMAR,
AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

3. LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O VINOD KUMAR,
AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

BOTH U/G SUNITA W/O LATE VINOD KUMAR,
MOTHER.

4. SHASHIKALA W/O BHIMRAO MORE,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
ALL R/O: PLOT NO.16,
NEW VENKATESHWAR MANDIR,
KALABURAGI - 585 103.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS U/G FOR R1)









Digitally signed by
VARSHA N
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3585-DB
MFA No. 201877 of 2025

HC-KAR



THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 14.03.2025 IN MVC NO.1432/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL (MACT) AND I ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE KALABURAGI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
and
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)


1. The Kalyan Karnataka Road Transport Corporation
(KKRTC) is before this Court seeking for the following
reliefs:
i. Wherefore, the appellant most humbly pray that
this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set
aside the judgment and award dated 14.03.2025
in MVC No.1432/2024 passed by the learned
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) & I Addl.
Senior Civil Judge Kalaburagi, in the interest of
justice and equity.

2. The MACT and I Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Kalaburagi, had allowed the claim petition by award
dated 14.03.2025 in MVC No.1432/2024 and
awarded a compensation of Rs.1,10,36,200/- with
6% interest per annum.

- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3585-DB
MFA No. 201877 of 2025

HC-KAR



3. Sri.Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the deceased himself was responsible
for the accident inasmuch the deceased acted
negligently by standing at the doorway of the bus,
while the bus was within the city limits, despite the
availability of empty seats and as such, he contends
that the deceased was responsible for the incident
and his death, and consequently, KKRTC could not be
held liable to pay compensation.

4. It is in that background that the learned counsel for
the appellant was called upon to verify and make his
submission as to whether any disciplinary
proceedings had been taken up by the KKRTC as
regards the driver and/or the conductor of the bus in
question.

5. Today, learned counsel for the appellant has filed a
memo enclosing the Order dated 23.05.2024 passed
by the disciplinary authority. A letter dated
23.03.2026 addressed by the Chief Law Officer of
KKRTC to the counsel for the appellant is also
enclosed therewith. As per the said letter, it is clear
that the driver who was involved in the accident was
working on contract basis and he has been removed
from service on account of this accident. The

- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3585-DB
MFA No. 201877 of 2025

HC-KAR


conductor has been imposed a punishment of
withholding of one annual increment permanently.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. More importantly, the appellant–Corporation, being
an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is held to a

- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3585-DB
MFA No. 201877 of 2025

HC-KAR


higher standard of fairness and consistency. Its
actions must conform to the mandate of Article 14,
which strikes at arbitrariness in State action. The
attempt to attribute negligence to the deceased,
despite having already fixed responsibility on its own
employees in departmental proceedings, is therefore
liable to be rejected as arbitrary and untenable.

9. 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, while simultaneously maintaining
disciplinary findings to the contrary.

10. 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

- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3585-DB
MFA No. 201877 of 2025

HC-KAR


entitled to any relief. Suppression of material facts
itself is sufficient to disentitle a party from relief and
warrants dismissal of the proceedings.

11. 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. This Court cannot permit
its process to be abused in such a manner.

12. The institution of the present appeal, founded on a
plea contrary to the Corporation’s own concluded
findings, lacks bona fides and constitutes an abuse of
the process of law. There is therefore a need for
courts to impose realistic and deterrent costs to curb
frivolous and dishonest litigation. Public authorities,
in particular, are expected to act responsibly and not
burden courts with untenable and inconsistent
claims.

13. In our considered opinion, the present case warrants
imposition of exemplary costs, both to mark the
Court’s disapproval of such conduct and to ensure
that State instrumentalities adhere to standards of
fairness, candour, and consistency in litigation.

14. In that view of the matter, we pass the following:

- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3585-DB
MFA No. 201877 of 2025

HC-KAR


ORDER
dismissed
i. The appeal stands .

ii. Though exemplary costs could be imposed,
nominal cost of Rs.25,000/- is imposed on
KKRTC payable to the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority within a period of four
weeks from today i.e. on or before
21.05.2026.

iii. The costs imposed shall be recovered from
the officers responsible for authorising and
pursuing the present litigation, after
conducting an appropriate internal inquiry.

iv. The Managing Director of Kalyana Karnataka
Road Transport Corporation is directed to:

a. Issue appropriate administrative
instructions/circulars mandating full
disclosure of all material facts, including
disciplinary proceedings arising out of the
same incident, in all judicial proceedings;

b. Put in place a litigation scrutiny mechanism
to ensure consistency in pleadings and
positions taken before courts and tribunals;
and

- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3585-DB
MFA No. 201877 of 2025

HC-KAR



c. Fix accountability in cases where
inconsistent or misleading stands are taken
before judicial and quasi-judicial forums.

v. Amount deposited before this Court and the
records, if secured are directed to be
transmitted to the Tribunal.

Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE



VNR
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 36
Ct: Vk