RE THE men count or rcamwrmm arr _
Dated this the 2nd day q£...n;1y, if
PRESENT7 ¥ " % _
THE Hoxrnm
_ .'
mm aonvaw am. Jvéfime, 15. GOWDA.
M1scELm_.¥$QrJs _#.:AP}5Ei£5£.,§dgj'7':13D orgy
MISCELi;;A___§_i_§;0E.§S"Vi?iR4ST ivo. 7130 (312004
EETWEEN; '
, .
Transport: _ '
Cmiiral Qflizx-x,
Ba:1g'a1ore?=- ".3? by its
Mmmging i3iIté-min'
V .Repr:=,$aente=d byita
Lac? €3§'i'a'.-er ...AppcI1ant
(By Smt. H R Remzm, Advottatci
C Venkatappa
Si 0 hte C umwah
Aged about 47 years
K V Lcclaznbikzz
D] 0 C Venkatappa
Aged about 22 ycars
K V Vankateshmurthy
S] o C Venkatappa
Aged about 20 yfiars-'wk
K V Chaitra A
D/0 C Vcnka_tappa_..-- _ '
Aged about £9~yea='r8 I
Hesa1°gh_eat£;5i;»Iiobié' _
Baug3.191'1;_ N($i'§+_3.! TI
s/o~chandms;h¢kar~~ "
Adu1t'=.._ " _ 2
Ego Noise, vs»! Cixméz
__§_BF1ML lxaymzt' V
. '- ._ Ra:jaxa.jr:A$hwari''*fi'agar
V-39
Assurance
"co. 1,.1;;::.%,M
'«No.._1o;V 11:3, 'Nmdahkha'
Bujiding, 1! Floor
.A Qtieaas Road
V " -52
' By its Rmnch Manager ...l32r:spondents
(By Sri K T Gurudeva Pmsad, Advocate for R1 to R4;
Sari O Mahesh, Advocate fcr R6;
R5 8€1'Vl:5d}
K H Road, Shaanthinagar
Bangalore ~--~ 27 by its
Managing Director
2 Clfiasannafiumar
S] 0 Chandmshckar
Aged about 40 yuan:
RIO Ne:;.280. 3*" Cmsa
BEML Layout
Rajarajcshwari Hagar
Bangalore -~39
3 The New India Asatirancx: * v
Co. Ltd., " ._ .V
No.10/13, 'N&&dal&K1ia'. '& ~ '
Quee11s¢Road5A; ' ' V .
Bangalésre ,
By " ...Respondem:s
under Onier 41 Rule 22 of
cm again s£,_th¢: juégméflt and award dated 19-62004 passed
in MVC No.53--9_.,9'Uf cu." the 1111: of the DI Additional Smali
Causes. 'Jugigc and MACT', Bangalore, {SCCH-2), partly aiiarwiag
.-gtize ' tifion Eiitd acclcing enhancement
bf mfiipefisatfiiaq,
MFA CROB are Corning on for tmicrs this
day, s.%Kt31ms;r¢ 53.; delivereé the fofievwixzg :
JUQQQQEI
' '"'Y"i'1c Bangalore Mehupofimn Transport Corporatiun has
' _4 p1*r3'f}:1md the appeal in MFA No. mac/2004 chalkmgizzg both
,-gait quantum of oompensafion as well as the finding
acfionabic xmgfigenoe. The claimants have 3130 pm-,1.!'eai_:::=.:§;_=:a':'i~ ._thc
Cmss Objecfions. Both are takcn up tegether
and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. For the purpom of
referred to as they are _
3. On 17.1O.20O£2;:a€A_ab¢h 1'fgV_1;??? Jayamma
was travelling in BMTC. ma ré4:,M§§A-o1-F~?17 from
Hcjjala Gate to ox; When the bus was
proocedm' g driver of the bus dzxzwe
the vefi iQle'-- in V 1:i::gjgeI1t manner and W.h1k*' .
ovcrtalcing dashed against another lorry
'fiom tiieflrvfppgrizsitc dzimction. On account of the
V. ;Iafié1nma and other passengers sustained gicvous
suocumbed to the: said injmics. She was
V V' _ aged"'abm,it' years and was working as a ¢3lerk~cum--%ypi.st.
$h¢ &:i7azs=-- Ra.3,5{)0/~ per month. Thetefizere, hm'
A C.Ve:;nkatappa and her children preferred the claim
f -.y¢_3.f_;itio::1 claiming mmpemafian. Similar claim petitions had
V
hwy. filed by others who lost their dear mm in ti:é"»samc
aztzcicient.
4. Afizr semice of nefigzc,
appmrancac. Respondent No.1-BMTVC}
contending that the accident *«’éfaa__.no1V:’ ‘
and negligent clriving by the thy: B”!5}§’T~f.§_”§;§:us,:VVfbut it Wm
01: ammunt of the iany Hcw\%v¢V:;r, they did
not dispute the” iijvvféififxiiigdwmt-msmance
company which fiontended that the
accident ‘vthe BMPC bus and the
lorxy was in rib the accident.
‘ . 5. ,, the were clubbed tegether. The
gésugs. The first claimant was examined as
documents which WCIE marked as Exs.
to P11″; 031 of thc mspondants the driver of the bus
‘ ‘4 ” ‘aéfis Hawcver, no documents were produced.
‘ “fA’h¢ ‘1’:ribunai cm exzrnsicinration of the aforesaid oral
‘ €i”cumcnt21y fividenoc on Iwgrfi hcki that the ace-:11 cat
on account ofthc rash and negligent driving by RW1, the 4
1l//
-~I
drivcr of mg BMTC bus and thus the
established actionabk: ncgiigenczt: and they
compensation. The contention of *.T:«’tv;”:r£/~
accident was on acceunt of the Elf.
rejected. Thcrcaficr, it to thé ;
payable to the claimants: It tin: at
Rs. 3,160/-, appiicd l[3″*
taswaxfls fhe pemqnal and awmded
Rs. 3,6{},000/ gggiass {cf that it awarded
Rs.5,£}GO/ – RS. 10,000] — towards 1033
$3′ mnsgmm 3 :23. 3,75,om/- as globai
mnmpensafioxgg vafiggiévfed. the said awatnd, the Corporation
has tin: The claimants have also preferred
V. A ‘ — V _
.’ A as the questien ofncglzigcncc is oozzamnzxed, in
appeagfi against thc V313′ same onier in MFA No.
V’ this Court has acgafivcd tlm mtmtenfion of then
‘ and held the finding 9f the Tribunal that the swcident
“£433 on acaonnt of the rash and negligent driving by the driver
of the bus is <Z':0I'£'CCL In that view of the matter, as the said
M
questian is almady ccznciutzied, in this case: alsojva.'
there is no fiub-stance in the mzatcntion of thgzg
for the appeflant.
8. In 3:: far as the eom’;§§:7n§afif;n»-
the dmeascd was aged aiqout of the
claimants that she : The
Tribunal has hcen vc1yA..l;ILh;c_;’ai income of the
deceased at I/3″‘ towards
persona; of 15 and has rightly
V? has of dependency.
To that towanis convenfional hmds. In
all Rs,V3,75.§r:’§é*1:§.,lita:n:¢:§1nent as contended in the Cross Qbjections.
Iitiifléf’ the matter, we do not see any merit in both the
afifasréil as the Cmss Gbjcctians, Aocaltiiazgiy, both the I
Qastweii as the Cross Objections am dismnksad. L
<::kl/ —
High Court Iegistzy is dirmm to
dcpositnd by the Clorporafion at the time: pf»
appeal to the Tfibunal.
/1 kjudgé ‘V