A damaged bus’s downtime may establish loss of earnings despite substitute buses operating on the route.

On 14 March 2012, a lorry allegedly collided with a KSRTC bus near Karehalli Village, damaging the bus.

KSRTC’s Divisional Controller claimed compensation for the repair costs and loss of revenue while the bus was unavailable.

The Tribunal awarded ₹4,14,500, with interest at 9% per annum.

The insurer appealed, challenging the award for loss of revenue, including the assessment based on daily revenue and the period the bus was off the road; it argued that another vehicle operated on the route and that the loss was not proved.

The judgment records the bus as idle for more than 27 days.

Whether KSRTC was entitled to compensation for loss of revenue while the damaged bus was idle, notwithstanding the availability of another bus on the route.

Whether the Tribunal’s award for loss of revenue warranted appellate interference.

Section 72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 permits conditions on stage-carriage permits, including a requirement to maintain reserve vehicles.

Rule 69A of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 prescribes the maximum number of reserve vehicles to be maintained according to the number of permits.

In MFA No. 22143/2009 (10 January 2014), a Co-ordinate Bench referred to these provisions in considering loss-of-revenue claims where reserve vehicles were available.

In MFA No. 4377/2001 (20 July 2006), a Division Bench held that the fact that another KSRTC bus operated on the same route did not defeat a loss-of-earnings claim where the damaged bus was kept idle; the period of idleness could itself establish loss of earnings from that bus.

The Court acknowledged that KSRTC was required to maintain reserve vehicles and that the existence of alternative transport could bear on a loss-of-revenue claim.

It nevertheless declined to apply the reasoning attributed to the Co-ordinate Bench as a bar to compensation.

The damaged bus had remained idle for more than 27 days, and the Court relied on the Division Bench’s view that the bus’s idleness could establish loss of earnings from that particular vehicle, even if another bus served the route.

It therefore found the Tribunal’s award appropriate and saw no basis to interfere.

The award of ₹4,14,500, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition until realization, was left undisturbed.