'No Evidence': Karnataka HC Rejects BMTC's Claim That It Lost 13 Days Revenue As Bus Was In Repair After Accident, Refuses To Enhance Compensation
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal by Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal towards damages for a bus involved in a road accident. The court dismissed the plea after noting that the BMTC could not produce cogent evidence to prove that the bus was kept idle for 13 days, for carrying...
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal by Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal towards damages for a bus involved in a road accident.
The court dismissed the plea after noting that the BMTC could not produce cogent evidence to prove that the bus was kept idle for 13 days, for carrying out repairs to the bus after the accident.
Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha dismissed the appeal filed by BMTC and said “This Court is of the view that there are no grounds whatsoever to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Tribunal. Thus this Court ultimately holds that the appeal lacks merits and deserves dismissal”.
Going through the records the bench said “The appellant failed to produce such cogent and convincing evidence to show that 13 days period was actually required to effect the required repairs. By the evidence that is brought on record it is clear that the vehicle in question remained at Hebbal Police Station for 2 days. For what purpose it was there at the Police Station for the said period and why the appellant failed to take immediate steps claiming custody of the vehicle for effecting the required repairs is not made clear anywhere.”
It added “Without these facts being clearly brought on record, it is not possible to hold that the vehicle was kept idle for 13 days for the reason of effecting required repairs and that the said period is essential for effecting repairs and also that the appellant sustained loss due to nonoperation of the vehicle for the said period.”
Background
On 27.07.2018, while its driver was driving the Volvo bus another bus drove the said bus at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the BMTC bus, due to which the bus was badly damaged. The bus was kept in workshop for repairs for more than 13 days and thereby huge loss was sustained. BMTC had sought rs. 3 Lakh as damages before the Tribunal
It was argued that through operation of the bus in question, the appellant was earning Rs.12,844 per day. As the bus was kept at workshop for more than 13 days for effecting the required repairs, BMTC sustained loss of Rs.12,844 per day.
Through the evidence of Pw.3 and Ex.P10 - Income and Loss statement, the appellant said that it had established the loss sustained, however without appreciating the same the Tribunal awarded meagre sum of Rs.83,293 towards damages.
The insurance company opposed the plea saying the total loss sustained by the appellant itself is Rs.9,000. However, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.83,293 as damages and thus the appeal itself is not maintainable. Moreover, for effecting the required repairs, one day is more than sufficient.
Finally it was submitted that during the course of cross examination it is clearly admitted that the spare buses were available at the relevant period which itself establishes that the appellant did not sustain any loss.
Findings
The court noted that for claiming any sum towards damages due to dysfunction or malfunction of a vehicle and the resultant loss sustained, the claimant is required to establish about the sum which was being earned through use of said vehicle. The expenditure that was being incurred per day for plying the said vehicle on road including its maintenance. The net profit that was being received.
Further, whether there was any possibility for substituting the said vehicle with any spare vehicle and if so whether it was done. In case the vehicle was substituted by a spare vehicle, the loss if any sustained even after such substitution. The amount if any incurred for engaging or hiring another vehicle.
Accordingly it dismissed the appeal.
Appearance: Advocate Radha B P for Appellant.
Advocate Pradeep B for R1.
Advocate Mahesh K H for R2
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 84
Case Title: BMTC AND IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD & ANR
Case No: M.F.A. NO. 3567 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 85