SHARADA BAI Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal raises a point of law of some consequence having regard to the unusual circumstances of the case. The issue centres around the question as to whether the liability as far as negligence is concerned is confined only to the action or non-action on the part of the driver or whether in the case of public transport vehicles the concept extends also to other members of the operating group, The facts are extremely clear insofar as the deceased Siddalingappa who was aged about 30 years had travelled in a K.S.R.T.C. passenger bus from Ghanagapur Station to Vaijapur on 6.11.1988. He was an agriculturist and the bus had halted at Vaijapur bus stop at which time the deceased got on to the top of the bus and unloaded two bags of . coconuts belonging to him. He was in the process of unloading the third bag when it is alleged that the bus moved forward suddenly and that he was either thrown or fell off the top of the bus. As a result of the fall, he sustained injuries and was removed to hospital. He succumbed to the injuries on 24.11.1988.

(2.) A Claim Petition was filed before the M.A.C.T. Gutbarga claiming compensation aggregating to Rs. 1.5 lakhs by the wife, two minor children and the mother. The learned trial Judge after recording the evidence disallowed the plea for compensation completely. The reasoning of the trial Court was that the evidence indicated that the deceased had climbed on to the top of the bus and that he was unloading the bags of coconuts when he fell from the top and sustained injuries. The learned trial Judge held that in these circumstances, no negligence can either be ascribed to or held to be established vis-a-vis the driver of the vehicle and since this is a pre-condition for the award of damages, that the claim was liable to be rejected. The present Appeal is directed against that order.

(3.) When the matter came up for directions, since the main issue involved in this case was as to whether on the aforesaid set of facts it can be held that the respondent-Corporation is liable to pay compensation, I requested, Mr. S.P. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate to assist his Colleague and to appear as Amicus Curiae in this Appeal, He has advanced certain submissions which I shall deal with and I also heard the learned Advocate who represents the Corporation. I have also had occasion to go through the record of this case.