Court Criticizes KKRTC for Contradictory Stands and Suppression of Material Facts in Motor Accident Claim
The Karnataka High Court's Kalaburagi Bench recently dismissed an appeal filed by the Kalyana Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (KKRTC) and imposed nominal costs for its inconsistent litigation conduct. The appeal, filed against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) awarding compensation to the family of a deceased victim in a motor accident, was found to be based on contradictory stands that violated legal principles and fairness under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The KKRTC had initially alleged negligence on the part of the deceased, claiming that he was responsible for the accident by standing at the doorway of the bus despite available seating. However, disciplinary proceedings conducted by the corporation had earlier held its driver and conductor culpable, resulting in the driver's removal from service and the withholding of the conductor's annual increment. The court highlighted the impermissibility of KKRTC's contradictory stance, emphasizing the legal principle that parties cannot approbate and reprobate.
The bench, comprising Mr. Suraj Govindaraj and Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha, emphasized that KKRTC, as a state instrumentality, is held to a higher standard of fairness and must adhere to the constitutional mandate of Article 14. The attempt to attribute negligence to the deceased despite having fixed responsibility on its employees was deemed arbitrary and untenable.
The court criticized the corporation for suppressing material facts, noting that the disciplinary actions against the driver and conductor were not disclosed at the earliest opportunity. Such conduct was found to undermine the sanctity of judicial proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
In a stern message against frivolous litigation, the court imposed a nominal cost of Rs. 25,000 on KKRTC, payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The costs are to be recovered from the officers responsible for authorizing and pursuing the litigation after an internal inquiry.
Furthermore, the court directed KKRTC to issue administrative instructions mandating full disclosure of material facts in judicial proceedings and to establish a mechanism ensuring consistency in legal positions. The decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to uphold fairness and accountability in litigation, particularly by public authorities.
Bottom line:-
Motor Accident Claims - Appellant Corporation cannot take inconsistent stands by attributing negligence to the deceased while having already fixed responsibility on its employees in departmental proceedings. Such contradictory pleas are impermissible in law and violate principles of fairness and consistency under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Statutory provision(s): Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166, Constitution of India Article 14
Managing Director, KKRTC v. Sunita, (Karnataka)(DB)(Kalaburagi Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 2893457
