The Karnataka High Court recently ruled that a Road Transport Corporation (RTC) cannot take conflicting positions regarding an accident involving its driver. On one hand, the corporation defended the driver in a Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MVC) case, while on the other, it initiated disciplinary proceedings against him for the same incident.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed:
"If any accident occurs, in pursuance of which the Corporation were to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a driver, the Corporation cannot take a different stand in a claim proceeding filed in MVC matters."
Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Petition Challenges Bar Council Extension, Seeks Fresh Elections
The court emphasized that being a government entity, the RTC must act as a model litigant and ensure consistency in its legal stand.
Case Background
The Divisional Controller, North Western Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (NWKRTC), filed a writ petition challenging the Labour Court’s order, which had overturned the dismissal of driver Hussainsab. The driver was terminated following an accident on March 24, 2013, where a motorcycle rider lost his life due to alleged rash and negligent driving.
Read Also:- Karnataka High Court: Imprisonment for Maintenance Arrears Cannot Exceed One Month Per Application
The MVC case filed by the victim’s family saw the RTC arguing that the driver was not at fault and that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased. However, in the disciplinary proceedings, the corporation accused the driver of misconduct, claiming he was responsible for the accident.
High Court's Findings
The High Court noted that the RTC had already taken a stand before the MVC Tribunal that the driver was not at fault. Despite this, it proceeded with disciplinary action against him, which amounted to an inconsistent and unfair approach. The MVC court had ruled against RTC’s defense and awarded compensation, which was later contested only on the quantum of damages and not on liability.
Justice Govindaraj stated:
"The Corporation being a government entity and a State under the Constitution is required to be a model litigant. A model litigant cannot take two contradictory stands, on the one hand, contending that the driver was driving in a proper manner, virtually certifying the driver's conduct and driving abilities and, on the other hand, initiate proceedings against a driver for rash and negligent driving by contending that there is misconduct."
The court ruled that the RTC’s contradictory approach was unsustainable and malicious, reinforcing that fairness must be upheld in all proceedings.
The High Court dismissed the RTC’s writ petition and upheld the Labour Court’s decision to reinstate the driver. The order dated September 25, 2019, passed in Reference No.13/2018, was confirmed. Additionally, the time granted by the Labour Court for compliance was extended by 30 days.
"In that view of the matter, the Road Transport Corporation having succeeded in delaying the award of compensation before the MVC Court and filing an appeal before this Court in Misc. First Appeal and at the same time prosecuting the driver for negligent driving cannot be sustained."
Appearance: Advocate Prashant S Hosmani for Petitioner.
Advocate Chetan L Limbikai for Respondent.
Case Title: The Divisional Controller AND Hussainsab.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 148260 OF 2020