Deceased was helping passengers alight, hence proved to be a conductor: HC

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: A person who was run over by a bus was proved to be the conductor of the said bus and the High Court of Karnataka has directed the insurance company to pay compensation to his family.

The insurance company had contended that the deceased was the cleaner of the bus who was not covered under the insurance policy.

However, the HC noted that the deceased was facilitating the passengers to board and alight the bus and signalling the driver to stop and start the bus. Therefore, the HC said that it was proved that he was the conductor of the bus.

“Normally, it is the duty of a conductor to facilitate alighting and boarding of passengers; and to give signals to drivers to ‘Stop’ and start the bus at a bus stop. It is not the duty of a cleaner to perform said duty. (Witnesses) reveal that at the time of the accident, the deceased was performing the duty of conductor which corroborates the case of the petitioner/claimants,” Justice K Somashekar and Justice Umesh M Adiga said in their judgement on an appeal filed by T Shantakumar, the owner of the bus.

The deceased was one Lohith Kumar working as a conductor in the bus owned by Adiga. He was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.50,000 and a bata of Rs.300 per day.

On February 5, 2018, while performing his duty at the Peelapura gate bus stop, he fell from the footboard of the bus sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries while undergoing treatment. The mother and brother of the 35-yearold Lohith sought compensation for his death.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT). The insurance company contended that Lohith was “not the conductor of the bus and he was cleaner in the said bus. The risk of the cleaner of the bus was not covered in the policy. Therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.”

The MACT in its judgement on August 6, 2019, awarded a compensation of Rs.8,58,500 to the mother and brother of Lohith and directed the bus owner to pay it rather than the insurance company.

The MACT held that he had violated the terms of the insurance policy and was therefore liable to pay the compensation himself. Adiga challenged this in the HC by filing an appeal in 2019. The Division Bench of the HC gave its judgement on the appeal recently.

The HC noticed that Lohith was indeed a conductor on the bus.

“The prosecution papers also reveal that at the time of the accident in Peelapura Gate bus stop, the deceased facilitated for alighting and boarding of the said bus and before he could board the bus, the driver drove the vehicle negligently because of which the deceased fell and sustained head injury and later succumbed to the injuries,” it said.

The HC said that the owner of the bus should pay the compensation but the insurance company should indemnify him. It directed that the “Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this award.” (MFA 8108/209)