MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH, DOUBLE ROAD, BANGALORE - 27 REP. BY IS CHIEF LAW OFFICER Vs. PADMASHRI, D/O. LATE SHANKARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the KSRTC challenging the judgment and award made by the Tribunal on the ground of negligence and liability. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits, on 12 -5 -02 when deceased Shankara was travelling in the KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA -13 -F -799 from Holenarasipur towards Bangalore, a Tipper lorry bearing registration No. KA -13 -911 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the right side rear portion of the bus. As a result, deceased sustained grievous injuries and he was shifted to District Hospital, Mandya and later to NIMHANS, Bangalore. From there, he was shifted to K.K. Hospital, Mysore, where he expired on 24 -07 -02. Case was registered against the driver of offending Tipper lorry and Police after investigating the complaint have also filed charge sheet against the driver of tipper lorry. It is also the case of the claimants that accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of tipper lorry by its driver and after three years of the accident, KSRTC came to be impleaded as respondents 5 and 6 to the claim petition, mainly on the ground that the driver of tipper lorry did not possess an effective and valid driving licence to drive the tipper lorry and insurer of tipper lorry is not liable to indemnify the owner and pay compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal is not justified in holding accident was occurred due to contributory negligence of 70% on the part of the driver of tipper lorry and 30% on the part of the driver of KSRTC bus. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and award of the Tribunal, in so far as fastening 30% of liability against the KSRTC is concerned.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 herein is the claimant. She was served and remained unrepresented. R.2 is the driver of tipper lorry and notice to him was dispensed with. Respondent No. 3 is the owner of the lorry, represented through his Counsel. Learned Counsel for R.3 submits, there is no illegality or infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal holding 70% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of tipper lorry and 30% on the part of the driver of KSRTC bus and he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

(3.) I have perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal and heard the Counsel for the appellant and the respondent No. 3.