Bangalore Metropolitan Transport ... vs Sri Pullaiah on 24 February, 2010

[Cites 3, Cited by 4]

Karnataka High Court

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport ... vs Sri Pullaiah on 24 February, 2010

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

nu THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED 'nus THE 24*" DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2o1o____

BEFORE

THE l~lON'Bi_E MR. ;ius*n:cE A.N.vENuc;0r>ALA*i3o'w:3;A.7  A-

M.F.A No.15068 OF 2o.07._(i7_f,  A

BETWEEN:

Bangalore Metropolitan

Transport Corporation,  

Central Office, K.H.DoubIe Roa  

Shanthinagar,      -A 

Bangalore,   g     = _

By its Managing Director.  '    ;__..APPELLANT
(By Sri. D.Vijaya.kumar,,i)l\dv--..)'A "  ' 

Aged about 56 years,'  

R/o. No.5~A, 2"" Main,' _  

3" Cross, Mldniyappa G--,ard~en Layout,
K.R.P=;.ir'am,   '

  - ,.,l3an.;';_ja:lo{'e_ -~..,p56oAo3e,--iA - ...RESPONDENT

(By Sri. .,§)';G'un"as,heka r, Adv.) filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the _jiodgment and award dated 23.07.2007 passed A in MVC "i\£o.'7887/2006 on the file of the V Adcil. Judge, 'Court of..VS~ma|l Causes, Member, MACT, Metropolitan Area, " [A/layo,_.ha|l Unit, Bangalore, (SCCH.No.20), awarding a

- "c.omp_e'nsation of Rs.6,07,000/-- with interest @ 6% p.a from the date of petition till payment.

This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the Court delivered the foiiowing:

JQDQMENT Respondent, when he was standing "

Road near Ganesha Temple, K.R.'?ura_rn,jj.Ban'g_ai--ore.,'trraet.f with an accident on account Vo~f_4.rash"and-- of a BMTC bus by its driver. HeV"t'sb_Vs'ta_iVned" niuries and was taken to Dr.SL_hetty.'_'Alcl'i.nic;._V_a».nd..Iyaterlshvifted to Bowring hospital. V He S.163~A of the Motor Ve'hic{e:s'VAct_,A short) against the appellant: "contest'ed by the appellant. He was a_ged--aAVb'o'ta.t«~..5:6ye'ars~as on the date of accident and was working-séas a s'ec{;rit»y,.'guard in a private company. His _ income' "could be at Rs.36,000/~ p.a. Tribunal after a,ppreciat'in,g.:tiie evidence on its record, has passed the a'w.a'ri'rj__V%.lAfog,_Rs:g6',07,0O0/-- under 7 different heads. _ Aggri"eveci', 'this appeai has been filed by the BMTC. Sri D.Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing ..._","i°,pr',%appeiIant raised 2 contentions viz., (1) that there is no & //I"/~

5. There is evidence of PW.1 with regard to the accident. The police records pertaining to the accident in question have been marked as exhibits. The drive.r"oif't.he,A4 bus has deposed as DW.1. Ex.P1 is the FIR. ' was registered on 30.9.2006 thoughithey in on 27.9.2006. There is evidence on'=rec'_oird that, appeiiant had lost'll._co.nscio'usnessl'in'ands-is was immediately hospitalised. In the2icircumstances_,,y the delay is not fatal. The hospitalriec.o'rd_si§Sho'vii...':l:!'i$It,_'the petitioner reported at the h_ospital;as'"to.';ho'w:'ih_e sustained injuries in the _theWpVo|ice after investigation of the cr'ime', thad.la'.ijd».:ch.a:rg.e" sheet against the driver of the btis. The ._:di*iv.erAi-wads":appeared before the Criminal Coturt..'andi~.ha-stadrnittedthe guilt which is evident from the case. Sri D.Vijayakumar, contended that,l__wtheV.driyenr has not reported about the accident. 07-'..___'!\ccordiiig__Ato the learned counsel, if the accident had taken was the duty of the driver to have reported the V."i-~~.ﬁma.tter to his immediate superior and ought not to have in J/' .-«' deposed falsely in the MACT. Learned counsel submits that the driver has remained unauthorisedly According to the learned counsel, since the "

permanent employment, if he has caused the 'accé1dentv.'and'»..A it did not report the accident, he is |i'a.t;le.A.A_tov bé~.{.,r'§k.a,ri., disciplinary action. In my view,'~..the said su_bmissi'o'ris'''are '' wholly irrelevant for conside,r-a-tilioin. diispvlosaliof this case. The non--disclosij'ie_.'ot',th'e? the driver cannot affect tvhetcayse herein. It is for the appellant' its driver, dependi,ng--.L;p0n.attic}, evi-dlenicet « of BMTC bus -- offending vehicl.e..has'pleaded and has paid the fine in the yr»,.,arin;iﬁaias,r-neonrt, thevvaccident is well established. The first colntensti,o'n:,iis'VtVh_ii's devoid of merit.

"The claim petition having been filed under it "',.'slS;'1*r33;-Ayof the Act, the compensation has to be awarded in termsi of the provisions made in the It Schedule. The "evidence on record discloses that the claimant was Lt /, hospitalised for a long period of time at Bowring hosp.ita|. There is amputation of right leg' and left hand.":V:Iii:"§'th'e~4V circumstances, it is a case of 100% disability"-by M the provisions of Workmens' Con1:pehs~ati'on f_ThouA'gh'*; the doctor has stated that it is 58°/o>A1'pe:rnfiainent the whole body, iooking at th-e:"'cQndAi.tio.n 'oft:t.he".VV}i'nj'u}jed, which can be seen fromthe at éEX.'?1i0}, in my opinion, there is MACT DY misconstruing S.166 of the Act has which in the facts and.circij'm.sféi1nA.cVes"-of'--the c'ase"°cai|s for modification.

8. uIn _th'e._cii¥cui'n'sta'nces, the compensation to the 15' respondeniif/'c,iaimianth'-is 'awarded as foiiows:

» a}-»"ifowar=:is«.,p'avin and suffering: Rs. 5,000/- bié'i7owVard's:..niedica| expenses: Rs. 15,000/~

c) i*owai:ds 'permanent disability:

A (Rs.3_6,000x8 m 2,88,000/-) Rs.2,88,000/- Hiotai: Rs.3,08,000/--

L. /I / In the result, the appeal stands allowed in part-.-.__ In modification of the impugned judgment and award"jpas'se'dv.4 by the Tribunal, it is held that, respondent/¢:l'aimeant"misﬁt M entitled to compensation of Rs.3,OV8,GG0_/,-- 6% p.a. from the date of petition 'ti-ll thlelldalte.dep'o:si~t,"l':

Amount in deposit ,in this be."tr_ansfe'r:ré'd:"'t0 the Tribunal.

The responttent/clajntievntheliree 1346/2008 which has effect of the peremptory Even otherwise, in xdew orthe;ehem5ne,ae§5é:ap§¢airaed by BMTC wuparp the said appeal"ot does not survive for considerati,.cn._ V A V .

Sd%e Eudge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court