01Facts
On 22 November 2017, the respondent was travelling in an NWKRTC bus when it collided with a tractor-trailer. He sustained injuries and received treatment, including an eight-day admission; he claimed compensation for the resulting injuries and loss.
pp. 2–3The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the bus driver’s negligence caused the accident and awarded ₹1,01,246 with interest at 8% per annum.
pp. 5–6The Corporation appealed, disputing negligence, alleging non-joinder of the tractor-trailer’s driver and insurer, and challenging the interest rate.
pp. 3–4, 702Issues
i.1. Whether the Tribunal’s finding that the bus driver’s negligence caused the accident should be disturbed
pp. 5–6ii.2. Whether the claim was bad for non-joinder of the tractor-trailer’s owner, driver, or insurer
pp. 6–7iii.3. Whether the Tribunal’s award of interest at 8% per annum should be reduced
pp. 7–803Law Applied
Under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an appeal lies against a Tribunal’s award.
p. 1The Court relied on Reena v. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (C.A. Nos. 10755–10758/2026, decided 19 August 2026), which it cited for the principle that filing a charge sheet may be treated as prima facie evidence of negligence.
pp. 5–6It also followed the Division Bench decision in Ms. Joyeeta Bose v. Venkateshan V. (MFA No. 5896/2018 c/w MFA Nos. 4444/2018 and 4659/2018, decided 24 August 2020), on the applicable rate of interest, and reduced the rate to 6% per annum.
pp. 7–8Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173
04Reasoning
The Tribunal’s negligence finding was supported by the charge sheet filed against the bus driver and by the absence of evidence from the Corporation establishing negligence by the tractor-trailer’s owner or driver. The Court therefore found no basis to interfere with the finding that the bus driver alone was negligent.
pp. 5–6Since negligence was attributed solely to the bus driver, the Court upheld the rejection of the non-joinder objection.
pp. 6–7However, applying Joyeeta Bose, it accepted the Corporation’s challenge to the interest rate and substituted 6% per annum for 8%.
pp. 7–805Holding
The appeal was allowed in part. The compensation award of ₹1,01,246 and the Tribunal’s other findings were upheld, but interest was reduced from 8% to 6% per annum.
p. 8Any amount already deposited was to be disbursed with interest at the reduced rate, and the amount deposited before the High Court was to be transmitted to the Tribunal; no order as to costs was made.
p. 8Original Court PDF
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,vsDURAGAPPA S/O HANAMANTAPPA @ HANAMAPPA KARI,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
