IN TEE RIG?! CQURT 9? K.A.RHA’i”AKA AT
DATED THIS THE 15% DAY 01-‘ smvrmmzga. 2g5¢_3′.;* ”
PRESEIIT
ms Humans mm. Jusrxctffiiéi-:2-z?£ia,;i
Aw
THE HOWBLE MR. Jvsfiafi~B.SREE§iV;§3E”:£§G%*”éA
MXSCELLANEOUS FIRST A29§éLLNQ_.5124 cm’ 2694 {MV}
BETWEEN:
EviAF\EGAL&, « Wfo RAMESH, AGED 35 YEARS; .
Rzzxxr N0.s{)3fi. 41:3′??? *€R’fQs3′,_ ”
HOUSING B<::AR1:%g_<;oL:3N'::-.i;» "
HA8SAN.__. _
{By Siiff. N . V' Fifiiv.)
'THE E\xi}XNAC}¥{$EG .33'I"R.E__(_§_'i'QR,
iéz.-s;.R':-:*.«:::»–.,;'L=
%L%K.%mr)AD;k~%%
SHALi$§THI?§V;%,{}21.f{; . V
BA.'i'sIGALOKE"_fi-: 550 027'
"(By §3'm?,f§«umanga1a A.SWamjg', Adv.)
1-'vr"k*1Fc~k
enhancament of compansation.
… APPELLANT.
.. ‘ RESPOSDENT.
AA +7§his;”‘Misce}1aneous First Appeal flied ‘under Section 1:r:3(1; sf
_ ff}f’1:’.i ‘£”i递¥.’.f”§2(Z!X’ Vehicies Act, against the Judgmezat and Award daéged
passfid in MVC N{:c.2135/2001 on the {IE6 cf tbs W
A “”}1Hd}’§iiti0:1a.1 Small Causes Judge and MACYF, Bangalore {SCC.H–i2},
“p3;r’$:1}r aflowing the Ciaim Petition far compensation axxci seeking
4. This appeal is far enhazlcememt ufldar Section 1733-{_1} of tha
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, 0:1 variety éf grounds. Thizei :10′:
been disputed before us that appeiiant was f
passenger ttavefling $31 a bus belonging ‘i:£_> p§3;ifig’
benveen Bafigalore and Ha-333:1 and tfié J
susizained bodiiy injuries.
5. Lcarxmd counsel fz3f~zg;ppei1饧i1tvL–:%3;e2V§é ::a,itted ‘thaf tha Tribunai
committsd a grave €}”E’01” in ‘ 3’9′ that the agapeliani
haci contributed the a<:cid&;3.i;. 'f'»:3 ilffiss
this poiifafé f_'1:.-2';iV'i(§*':;3 '~..§aj5:j:';1tj:t1i:::i*+;'oz1é:1sel far apgsaiiant has gflacad
reliance on ;§.u”i1.’::3r:1*:?1f.€ziQ ETt’€v_as’*–V_.
an idenficai cage: where a passengfir ‘@733 E1t:r_.V}i3ft._jé’1’i’§§3sr.;?7on; __ “V
“w£:1dew~si11 of the bus, azezd wa.s_}:jit an 491/3311
the bus crossed another bus
Division Bench Cf Kerala Higxl} Vfixiéér 0f the bus
ewes duty of care for the travdling in this
bus and he Sh(_}]}.=.5′{i_ ‘}:1av€[A fore_;$€e:1A”‘i}.1:’_upo%:;sibfii1;y of passengers
resting t}f:.3ir~ iI::5v::1:1 E;’Jii1{‘lQ¥{E;’Si}1 and sheuld have ieft
sufficient Sp211(:f: 313: there was no iikeiihood cf the
passsngarsz’ being
V6» A “‘»V:’e: if1avt”:. aIsc3 into consideration the Divimon Bench
6:.”§:iéi1f _{§f= wherein question of contributcry negiigence,
‘ Was’ Aiqjfiked. the cue from Haisbuxy Laws of England,
. «.._jLsa0king E9 me ratic decicifindi ef the aforesaid cases, we are 9f the
that the Tribunai committed an fifffir in coming $19 the
…_’ é’o3;iV’c}*Iusio11 that appeflant wouid be haifi liable to the extent of 125°/o
W ifbr centributaxy negiigmrace in the said accident. The said fandizzg
recorded by the Tribunal cannct be sustained in law. It is
‘V’€>
not find any rationals: behind itha reasoning mcer§g%§”‘»by ‘she
Tribunal as to why the same has been Confineé. fishen
the evidenct: was available to £1133: establish
disabihlty far the whale hwy was toizhfgébiéxtsfixt
any piausihle and valid reasens jibe 4€:UAi:Ci£?.I1C6 $.56 h:-ais
baefi brushtzd asida. Thus the 31$”)
cannet be sustarinseii in i¥3″$é£ aside. We
accardingly hold that disabfiity £0 {ha
W110§€ bofiy would
8. f1’1*i;;:¥1§9{‘t.’1{§5.acci§iiVé:3.i;’»f;§ie ap §é31 ant was C31″ij–r’3I1g {>31 b11S§I}€$S
of selling :fIaIfi}3flr§.f:L{‘Oij1.a”p}%S3’1é”:?i1I”L near Bhanu Theaire at Hassan.
This is frefn_E$,:_.P-Zfl’ a Seance issuad :0 her by the Town
_ fxliunicgfraliigr of Haasaxa. It has also come on mcerfi that eversince
$3116. cfietfix?-§’fh accifiéfit, the saiei business ha{}; {(3 ha Ehliit dowfl
£ix$:*::_x§?'<+t;;é .iid0f<)ae (3136 £11 thfi famiiy 9f the agpsiiant, who cmfld
haw: fiiéntinizfiki 5:0 Cfiffjg' the same. Thus accerciing ":0 us flue
'a§p€}1E1I1'?, '§£2'asvca:I}rir;g an the saié business, which uitimateiy had
t§:)_9 $é 'c:..§0sec1 ciown on aocaunt of nature of in_}?m*ies sustainad by
._.}_1ef;-b"f'.A11us adverse finding resettled £11 this regard 3150 stancis
'hftzzjby quashed *3)
9. Witiaout deducting 253% of the ammmt, tcstaé ammmt af
Rs.1,11,3(}€)/~ has been awaxtlad to the appefiant 11néer ‘<:':.ifler€1:t
heads as mentionad hereinbtflowz
3} Pain and Sufisfing V' V _
13) Loss of amenitiss . «_ ~« ,1?é} ” _ 5,9-{$4100 Y ‘
0) Medical expeases ~
ii] Loss of zaarming L.
6} Loss of future income’ I –“§93s..’7;44{:rV,8OG–OOV
f) Conveyance 8:L!I’:E.:i..v1f1(}1″1’1’iS”1i;3;”‘i_}:.’C*fi]:?l” t «–‘ 4,G(}O»G0
533.1, 1 },,3U(}~O€}
In Zvabsazxcév -‘and valid evidence ied by the
appeliant té ‘:~:1;;o:vv11€*r fimn selling panipuri, “I’:*i1:>tmal
_ Vhas uzas$es§c{iV_ i£’1e fizcome of ‘(ha appellant at Rs.2,f}{}0,1« per
V. Aéé. this aspect of the ;m.atts:-:1′ is concemed, it calls for
11¢’ .i:it::rfe1*e%i1:;_e.f ~§4£owcver, the other ameunts awarded to her
_under””«diiTr;’re1;.§::””1ieads desarve to be erzhanced. After having gone
-. _. . *.flirr)1:;gh Lmcopd and ‘the evidtnce available on record, WE are 9%’
1E.1i::aVi>g)it.};io:1 that the appellant (1_€S(3I’V€S is be awaréed. €315 fafiawixzg
% ‘.’§l1_§§1{)j1iJ3tS urrzcier the diifsmnt heads:
a) Pain and Sufifiring — Rs. ‘?{}§8OG~OS
13) Less of amenities ~ Rs. 2i’:;,GGO–{)0
‘T6
C) Medical exgenses ~ Rs. 2S–;Q4B(}–00
(:1) L033 of aarning — Rs. _ v.$;€) {}iI3e~9O
e) Logs af future incame — Ra;..~1.,
2000 x 30 x 12 x 1’7 = ”
1) Ccnveyance and nourishment _. V
g) For Ihtum medicai experxsgas ané. &_
0P6I’aiion
. ..–_»…..—..-. …………………………._..
10. Thus impugned awagfd is LAAp1§éfi.r9;:<1t entitled to
receive: in 311 from respondéiaifia.t§:ai–.é§.mé§:éj:a: 'Of _Rs.2,9(},40{} ,1 -.
11. The dfiferegltiél ‘_am0fi_1n§;b interest at the rats: of
6% per till its realiswzion. T336
amount
12. Agapeaix thigs éHCI \;E;€d to the extent made above, with
tE1I§c;ugi1o1i;:._ cmsaxg, fee is Rs.2,000/ ~ if certified.
Sd/-
Iudqe
Sd/-iv
Iudgé
AGV.