Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Nadeem Mohammed on 4 November, 2009
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH mum ms' KARNATAKA AT 1,: "
DATED THIS THE 04th DAY ore' NovEM;3Eie.2o£i9 % T' BEFORE V _ A _ TPIE HON'BI..E MR. wsrlém - * V' "
mxscmnansous mas? flo¥13753I3907. W HETWEEH:
KARNATAI<z=g$,1fATE"Ro;a:3 Taamsmm CORPORA'i'f9:N-LTfl_., 2:
CENTRAL *{)FE%f_i_C_E," 5-.HAzs§THiwfAGAR, 3ANGA::.0Isai-':_~o'1--,.
REPRESETNi§Q_B'I_,_"~ ~ MAMRAGIM3 nlfigscrc-iz. % .-- ...A (By Sxi. N} a. :2AT1L "1. _ V%'r€Aa5§:5:xq.M0HA§aMsn SIG._VN'0().R"'AHMED, acc;'mm$ssmm Busmsss, R19 3. N¥3.:2<4a4.
"{¥1I§'Iji£;?§1 FM?-K ROAD, MAE?-E MQEALLA, * = Lmscma.
xssmrmsm' Sri. mgmamamswnm, ADVGCATE) c.
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) 0? MV THE JUDGMENT 55 AWARD DATED 7/5/2097:"-9As$Eb we NOJ189/O6 on THE." "
01? THE ADDL msmrcr JUDGE, FAST MYSGRE, AWARDING A comfismsxrxsm {)Ff.v"1"?£':-.V 9'1:,3.*:jé5']"-- WITH INTERESF @ 6% RA.
THIS APPEAL C€jjM1%NG_«""5;§ -I,gnMiSsIt)N THIS DAY, THE coum' DELWEi?_E'E)--'E'HE F(}i;.LQw1__Ne:
The Lower court nacoxxis are _.oi.' Earned counsel for both parub 3, it tizgrsfinal' disposal. ' '~ _ has filed this appeal to sci amt!' c the / Induce compensation inter alia ' accident took place due to absolute 301' driver of lorry and compensation awaxtlad by fiibunai tawaxtis cl? caused to the lorry is 3- 3
3. I have heard Jagadc-:6-sh G. Kumbar, Lwrned counsel far KSRTC and Sri Vmmb y, learned counsel for ciflalmant. H. .
4. From the cvidencc on record, it is "
accident took place when the vehicles VV H accident (KSRTC bus bearing Reg. bearing 1Vo.C1'IO. 9955) were moving jurisdiction of Bidadi Police'. Station'. '~-» 5' "~()j§;:_be13,$liV":'."t:s£ of lorry, 1=>w----1 has been examined on the date of accident, the u ?.§tme éi speed to its extreme right side of
--gnd' z1;§shui against the Lorry. It is scan from the décfimenis' ziséézd that the driver of lorry had mm: fizst <.;iix"s the accident. The drizver of KSRTC was in- 'A ofka public transport vehicle. He owed a duty 339» police of the aocidant. The bus bckmgs to a T ~ .. 's*tai:utory corporation. He also owed duty to inform his W' L/--'kw-¢£?u»~<4. i superiors about accident. Besides, the KSRTC _ cxanun' ed the driver to rebut the cvid' cnce "
police, aficr investigation, have the: driver of KSRTC bus.
justificd in holding that the ' S to absoiute negligence of of ling H V2
5. The contentsv V. phatogmphs produced by the czlaimant right side portion of the The claimant has Iepahcd the buy, however, 5:: has fivvner of garage.
7. . Rs.9l,355/- towards "angst 'pam.«and painting chmgcs. Taking into c9ns:jticxiaii9fi:a§vc;V£:atisn of the insured and the probable bin:
% a% Rs.10,000/~ would be a Iveasonabic 'V Vv ctsfimaié 9f- vl.o':3é..; of carmb gs per monfh. Conflcting the gr dafizages, it can safely be held that the buy new A _ éufiiégr for a pcxiod of two months. Thcmfom, the kiss ' for two months would he a sum of R's.20,000/-.
Tbemfgfie, 'V The Tribunal without ass1m:nng' ' any masons b1?{3;'~d1s9fi"' 4,: 'RQW "
cempcnsawn under the head 1os_$t....oi I3r.2. V circumstances, even if the compensation towanis cost __spaie. charges, the same is offwsct T_ disallowed by the 2Iv¢_;lo not find my grounds to intcxtfczp withAth1§. ,c.';_*."'
3. In 'f%fiRnng"
. 'r1:.eA;§;::.:a;:1"»;s§"d";sm1ssed;' ' _(ii) 2 -'!'1V1_Ve' 51n1;*..a1::.1t deposited by th:
a K.s;1z--"r;c shailbc transiiezmd to '§»fr<:»Iv & Add}. mm' at Mysom. are directed to bear mm' ' .' 4' cosm RKK/..