01Facts
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
pp. 1-2The appellant contended that the deceased was contributory negligent by standing at the bus doorway despite available seats
p. 3internal records revealed that KKRTC had already removed the driver from service and penalized the conductor for the same accident prior to filing this appeal
pp. 3-4These disciplinary actions and material facts were not disclosed to the MACT or initially to the High Court
p. 502Issues
i.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
p. 4 · ¶ 6-7ii.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
p. 5 · ¶ 9-1203Law Applied
The court applied the principle of approbate and reprobate, which prohibits a party from taking inconsistent stands to suit its convenience
p. 4 · ¶ 7As 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
pp. 4-5 · ¶ 8The court also applied the doctrine of clean hands, asserting that the suppression of material facts disentitles a litigant from obtaining relief
p. 5 · ¶ 10Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173
04Reasoning
The Court reasoned that KKRTC’s position was "inherently contradictory" because it had already concluded disciplinary proceedings fixing responsibility on its driver and conductor
p. 4 · ¶ 6By 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
p. 4 · ¶ 7The 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
p. 5 · ¶ 9This suppression was deemed a "clear instance of attempting to mislead the Court" and an abuse of the judicial process
p. 6 · ¶ 11-1205Holding
The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the MACT award
p. 7It held that the appellant's inconsistent pleas were legally impermissible and lacked bona fides
p. 6 · ¶ 12The Court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on KKRTC, to be recovered from the responsible officers
p. 7the 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
pp. 7-8Original Court PDF
THE MANAGING DIRECTORvsSUNITA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
