Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director Ksrtc Depot vs N G Daranesha on 18 June, 2010
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THES THE 18?" DAY OF JUNE 2010
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE s. ABDUL NA.';££ER:T'. A ~
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL :\1ot.679s;'/Méoowii' a\"/'Iv1'_'_:._
BETWEEN :
The Managing Director
KSRTC Depot
BTS Div.
K.H. Road
Bangaiore -- 27 ~. :
Rep. by the Chief Law Officer. 7 = _ v_ ' '
Bangalore ' EV APPELLANT
[By Srnt: v}*$,dv_;%) '
AND:
N.G. DaranVesha'v A A
S/0.G;aI1gaiah V V
'~ ._Ageci'a.bo1__it 24 yea'I's.. ..... .. v
R,/. a. "E%'ajiv' Gan dhi Nagar
NeIamangala'Tah1_k
Ba11g.a1ore:'R{1rai- District RESPONDENT
(Nofloe toV~i"e:sD1o.ondent is held sufficient}
= A. 'I'his MFA is filed u/s.1'?'3(1] of MV Act against the
'fizdgrhgent and award dated 7.1.2006 in M.V.C.
_a._No.932/2002 on the file of the VI Addl. SCJ, Member,
A' IVIACT, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore.
an
accident. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation
at Rs.57,000/-- with interest at 7% pa from the date.oi'
petition till the date of deposit.
2. I have heard learned Counsel For
Thought the respondent is s-jcerve'd.,& 'her. reniained
unrepresented.
3. The claimant was examined himself as'P_.W; 1. He
has produced certain doearneiitsi such:_as"'FIR, mahazar,
wound certificate,i'l1\/IV §rép'o'i~t;. charge and medical
prescriptions' behalf of the Tribunal,
H. Ashwatha.narayan_;~stheyldrilv-ei' of the bus was examined
as R.W._1 ancf~he' has statedllthat he was not responsible for
the He llhalsspecifically stated that the petitioner
any injuries in the accident and the
c1ainl"lpetition_ filed by the petitioner is false and baseless.
belie has lc!:_aiV:rned the compensation on the basis of the
fconco--cted documents.
it
4. Having perused the materials on record, it is
evident that the Tribunal has passed the iI'I1p41.]..g;I'3_("","'d__
judgment without appreciating the oral CViC1CI1Cg"0f.V"§';}(::1§§:
parties and without taking into account it
produced by the parties. I am of theyiew. it
has to reconsider the matter.
5. In the resu1't,:_."the it is
accordingly allowed. The a;r1d impugned
herein is hereby is..:V.relmitted back to
the Tribunal. accordance with law.
The wire; lealdvlvdfurther evidence and
producpy,9fic}.itiO1?ti1:.'.»fimcurrients if they so desire. The
statutory deposit sh;al1A'--.]9e""rlefunded to the appellant. No
****
y'SE:IF IUDGE