State Instrumentalities Cannot Plead Negligence of Victim While Concurrently Penalizing Employees for the Same Accident

The Kalyan Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (KKRTC) appealed against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT), Kalaburagi, dated 14.03.2025, which awarded Rs. 1,10,36,200/- to the respondents for the death of Vinod Kumar Mane

The appellant contended that the deceased was contributory negligent by standing at the bus doorway despite available seats

internal records revealed that KKRTC had already removed the driver from service and penalized the conductor for the same accident prior to filing this appeal

These disciplinary actions and material facts were not disclosed to the MACT or initially to the High Court

1. Whether the appellant-Corporation can plead contributory negligence of the deceased while simultaneously having penalized its own employees for culpability in the same accident

2. Whether the suppression of material facts and the adoption of inconsistent stands by a State instrumentality constitutes an abuse of the process of law

The court applied the principle of approbate and reprobate, which prohibits a party from taking inconsistent stands to suit its convenience

As an "instrumentality of the State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the appellant is held to a higher standard of fairness and must comply with Article 14, which mandates non-arbitrariness in State action

The court also applied the doctrine of clean hands, asserting that the suppression of material facts disentitles a litigant from obtaining relief

The Court reasoned that KKRTC’s position was "inherently contradictory" because it had already concluded disciplinary proceedings fixing responsibility on its driver and conductor

By removing the driver for the accident, the Corporation effectively admitted its employees' liability; therefore, it cannot later argue in court that the deceased’s negligence was the proximate cause of death

The Court found the Corporation's conduct particularly egregious as a State body, noting that it willfully withheld information regarding the disciplinary orders (dated 2023 and 2024) while filing the appeal in 2025

This suppression was deemed a "clear instance of attempting to mislead the Court" and an abuse of the judicial process

It held that the appellant's inconsistent pleas were legally impermissible and lacked bona fides

The Court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on KKRTC, to be recovered from the responsible officers

the Managing Director of KKRTC was directed to issue administrative circulars mandating full disclosure of disciplinary proceedings in future litigations and to establish a scrutiny mechanism to prevent misleading pleadings