The Karnataka High Court refused to entertain an appeal filed by a state transport corporation in a fatal accident case, pointing out serious inconsistencies in its stand before the court.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a tragic bus accident in Kalaburagi, where a man lost his life. His family approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), which awarded compensation of ₹1.10 crore with 6% annual interest.
Challenging this award, the Kalyana Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (KKRTC) moved the High Court under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The corporation argued that the deceased himself was negligent, claiming he was standing at the bus doorway despite available seats.
Read also:- Gauhati High Court: Resignation Ends Pension Rights, But Orders Release of Leave Encashment and NPS Funds
During the hearing, the bench comprising Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha raised a crucial question—whether any action had been taken against the bus staff involved in the accident.
Subsequently, the corporation submitted documents showing that disciplinary proceedings had indeed been conducted. The driver, who was working on a contract basis, had been removed from service, while the conductor faced a penalty of permanent withholding of one annual increment.
The court found this development significant.
“The Corporation, having already fixed responsibility on its employees, cannot now turn around and claim that the deceased alone was negligent,” the bench observed.
The judges noted that such a position was legally unacceptable. They emphasized that a party cannot take inconsistent stands to suit its convenience.
“A litigant cannot ‘blow hot and cold’ by adopting mutually destructive pleas,” the court remarked.
The bench also expressed concern over the corporation’s failure to disclose these disciplinary actions earlier.
According to the court, these were material facts that directly impacted the case but were neither presented before the tribunal nor disclosed at the initial stage in the High Court.
Read also:- Supreme Court Quashes FIR Filed on High Court’s Direction, Says Writ Route Can’t Bypass Legal Remedies
The judgment stressed that public authorities, being part of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, must maintain higher standards of fairness and transparency.
“The attempt to shift blame onto the deceased, despite internal findings against its own employees, is arbitrary and untenable,” the court noted.
The judges further held that suppression of key facts undermines the integrity of judicial proceedings and disentitles a party from seeking relief.
Finding the appeal lacking in good faith, the High Court dismissed it outright.
The court also imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the corporation, directing it to be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within four weeks.
Importantly, the bench ordered that this amount be recovered from the officials responsible for initiating and pursuing the litigation, after an internal inquiry.
Additionally, the Managing Director of KKRTC was directed to introduce administrative measures to ensure full disclosure of material facts in future cases and to establish a mechanism for consistent legal pleadings
Case Details
Case Title: Managing Director, KKRTC vs Sunita & Others
Case Number: MFA No. 201877 of 2025
Court: High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench
Judges: Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha
Decision Date: April 23, 2026
