Emphasising the need for fairness in conduct of litigation by a public authority, the High Court of Karnataka has pulled up the Kalyana Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (KKRTC) for “attempting to mislead the court by withholding crucial facts”. The court also imposed imposed a cost of ₹25,000 while refraining from imposing exemplary cost for the misconduct.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Justice Chillakur Sumalatha passed the order while dismissing an appeal filed by the KKRTC challenging a compensation of ₹1.10 crore awarded by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Kalaburagi, to the family of a deceased passenger, Vinod Kumar Mane, who had died on falling from the moving bus. He was working as a first division assistant in the Revenue Department of the State government at Sedam.

The corporation’s primary argument before the Bench was that the deceased himself was negligent, as he was standing at the rear doorway of the bus despite empty seats being available, and therefore KKRTC was not liable.

Contrary stand

However, upon scrutinising the internal records of the corporation, which were summoned during hearing, the Bench discovered a stark contradiction.

The corporation’s internal documents revealed that it had conducted disciplinary proceedings against the driver and the conductor of the bus in respect of the accident. Resultantly, the bus driver, who was appointed on contract basis, was removed from service, and the conductor was penalised with a permanent withholding of one annual increment holding them responsible for the accident.

Interestingly, the tribunal had noted that the police, after the investigation, had filed charge sheet against the bus driver alleging that the driver drove the bus at a high speed, rashly and negligently, without closing the door, and took a left cut, causing Vinod Kumar to fall onto the road causing grievous injuries, and later died during treatment.

The Bench noted that though the disciplinary actions were taken in 2023-2024, yet the corporation filed the appeal against tribunal’s order in 2025 without disclosing these facts to the tribunal or the High Court.

The corporation, having recorded a finding of culpability against the driver and the conductor in the disciplinary proceedings, cannot now be permitted to contend that the deceased himself was negligent, the court said.

The corporation, being an instrumentality of the state under the Constitution of India, has to adhere to higher standard of fairness and consistency in judicial proceedings, it said.

Corrective measures

Meanwhile, the Bench directed the Managing Director of KKRTC to issue administrative instructions mandating full disclosure of all material facts, including disciplinary proceedings from the same incident, in judicial proceedings. It also ordered a litigation scrutiny mechanism to ensure consistency in pleadings before courts and tribunals, and fixation of accountability for inconsistent or misleading stands before judicial and quasi-judicial forums.