SMT. LAXMIBAIversusKARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE

                                    SMT. LAXMIBAI                                     A
                                             v.
             KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
                             BANGALORE

                                     MAY I I, 2001
                                                                                      B
                 [D.P. MOHAPATRA AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.]


             Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 :

             Karnataka State Road Transpoi"J Corporation-Bus driven in high C
       speed and in a rash and negligent manner-Do01: glass broken due to stone
       throw-Broken glass piece hitting a travelling passenger in eye-Injury
       resulting in visual disability-Claim-Oral and documentary evidence
       supporting the case of appellant-Respondent c-orporation withholding
       documenta1y evidence in its possession-Tribunal gave a finding that the bus D
       was involved in the accident and awarding compensation-High Court setti11g
       aside the award and holding that bus was not involved in the accident-
       Appeal before Supreme Court-Held the Tribunal was quite justified in
       recording a finding that the bus was involved in the accident-The approach
-lo.   of the High Court was technical and thrust was wrong in appreciating tl/e
       evidence inasmuch as it was on niceties.-The impugned judgment of the E
       High Court is set aside-The judgment and award ?£the Tribunal is yestored'. .

             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3868 of2001.

             From the Judgment and Order dated 30.1 I .99 of the Karnataka High
       Court in M.F.A. No. 2873 of 1997.                                              F
             V.N. Raghupathy for the Appellant.

            P.R. Ramasesh for the Respondent.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :                          G
            Leave granted.

             This appeal is directed against the judgment ar1d award passed by' the
       High Court of Karnataka and the claimant is the appellant. The appellant was
       travelling in a KSRTC bus bearing No. CAF 3590 on 26.2. I 989. The bus was     H
                                           747
    748                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [200 I] 3 S.C.R.

A   driven in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner; when the bus
    reached Ningadahalli village, passed through a pit on the road, the appellant
    sustained an injury on right eye as a brok.en glass piece of windo-pane hit
    her eye resulting in visual disability to the extent of 35%. She filed a claim
    petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation.
B   The Tribunal passed an award granting Rs. 53,500 alongwith interest @ 9%.
    On Appeal by the respondent, the High Court by the impugned judgment set
    aside the award passed by the tribunal. Hence this appeal.

          The defence of the respondent before the Tribunal was that the said
    bus was not at all involved in the accident. The Tribunal on the basis of
C   evidence recorded a finding that the bus was involved in the accident. Before
    the High Court, the only question that came up for consideration was whether
    the motor accident occurred 11t all as alleged.

          The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Tribunal, on the
    basis of evidence, both oral and documentary produced in support of the
D   case of the appellant and withholding of the documentary evidence by the
    respondent was right in holding that the bus was involved in the accident;
    the High Court gave undue emphasis to technicalities and niceties and arrived
    at a wrong conclusion that the bus was not involved in the accident. The
    learned counsel for the respondent argued supporting the impugned judgment.

E         The appellant (PW-1)1 one Ramchandra Gandhale (PW3), an independent
    witness who was travelling in the said bus, have spoken in support of the
    claim. Exbt. P/4 is the case-sheet which shows that the appellant was admitted
    in the hospital on 27.2: 1989. History in the case-sheet reads:

            "While travelling in a Bus, Bus door glass broken due to stone throw
F    /

            and glass pieces fallen in right eye two days back."·

          The Tribunal found that the respondent did not produce copies of the
    log-sheet and control charts to show that the bus in question was not plied
    on that road on the date of the aceident and the said bus was not involved.
G   Thus on a proper appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal was quite justified
    in recording a finding that the said bus was involved in the accident. But we
    find that the approach of the High Court was wrong in appreciating the
    evidence in as much as it was technical and thrust was on niceties.

          When there were both oral and documentary evidence supporting the
H   case of the appellant, which was accepted by the Tribunal, in our view, the
              SMT. LAXMll3AI v. K.S.R.T.C. BANGALORE                  749
High Court Clearly committed an error in reversing the judgment and award    A
of the Tribunal particularly when the respondent withheld the documentary
evidence in its possession. The High court agreed with the Tribunal as far
as quantum of compensation is concerned. Hence, we find it difficult to
sustain the impugned judgment. Consequently, we set aside the same and
restore the judgment and award of the Tribunal. The appeal is. allowed       B
accordingly. No costs.

T.N.A.                                                    Appeal allowed.