High Court Karnataka High Court

The Managing Director Nwkrtc vs Mallappa Yallappa Umarani on 12 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director Nwkrtc vs Mallappa Yallappa Umarani on 12 March, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy


|-I

‘III \flJUI\I ‘If fill-E-KG-I

,,,o T ‘
M-F

1 THE n’|Ri¥:cr:§R1.”Nw1§R1’o
cEp:*rrmL._omcF, HUBLI REP. BY ITS
9:’;1s:9′:4p.L

_BELr3AuM.%%9Iv1sIoN,% % BE-LGAUM~ .

2 THE DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR _
‘~!NTERNAL’WSU.RRNC§E FUNB
KSRTC SHAIHTI-NAQAR, K.H.D_O_UBLE ROAD
CENTRALVDFFICES, BANGALORE 27 %

A!5PE’~–£A’NTS ARE’

” ‘V.PF.°ESE3§JTL'{ REP. 3′! ms ems? LA!!! 9. . game

% :§’;w;’x,R:’1*.§;’. ‘CENTRAL OFFICES HUBLI 30 ‘

(By { RAVI v I-IOSAMANI. ADV 1

Iluu. In… «:41: an nnnn.

: m

iviz’\Lr’\GO’u’D:’\ @ ?viAL’:..n’ PP}; DATPH ‘”””

AGED 30 YRS DRIVER _
R] O KALLOL TQ C’ TK’ “I, D””” BEL” ‘ Uivi

M

Rmsmnpnmi.

E0

MFA ii”ii..EB ms 173(1) 0}’ =.wr.A~;.fr;.;GA!

THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:28_,g.20 5 PAsé1+:D”

IN MVC 510.1942/2003 cm FELE * or-f
ADDL.CIV1L JUDGE {SR.DN.)_ & ‘A!3DL.MAC’_I”, . BELf_.§AU’M,

AWARDING COMPENSATION on RS-.22;€.mO-ié ‘W-iTi-‘1′-
.A.’!’ THE RATE oFAA6%% RA.” FROM A-TH’.E”DA’i’E our A
PETITION TILL THE DATE oF..PA.YMEN*r AND DIREUPING.

THE t’\’n’-‘PELLr’xN’I’S HEREIN THE. –

_A _-….. _.,…..

1 MALLAPPA__YAL=LAPP1§I5M1iRf§iii ‘: ”
AGED “AEi§)_UT 65 ms % ”

OC_C:AGRl_(1i_JLTURE,.

R,’ Q ;§\T~’POS’f ‘KALLOL
mg 1c=’.:1_1’K@p1_ D1_S'[_’_ BELGAUM

2 SIrIWEPPA’MfiLLAPPA UMARANI
«AGED 31
OGCAAAGRICULTU-RE
R] 0. #890 [GANDHINAGAR AT PD”T’ oi.
” TQ CHIKOD1 1:219!’ BELGAUM

M_A.LLA_PPA UMARAN1

._ ‘=._A(‘~’;ED’ 9.9 YRS
C-CCRGRICULTURE
RID #390 GANDHINAGAR AT POST KALLOL
..c:ni1<oDi ms? BELGAUM

A 4" BHARAT: PRAKASH SAGALGE

AGED 27 YRS HOUSEWIFE
RI 0 MAHISAL TQ MIRAJ DIST' SANGLI
M.".H.A.R!*.S'!'R.A. !-.-'.-'!'A'I'E

SHNAJ: SHANK.".R 3Ez~muR1<..A.s2
MAJOR BUSINESS RIO KALLOL TQ . V
Ci-HKKODi DES'? BELGAUM M

01

6 THE S-Efiioa DiV:sIoNAL MANAGER ..
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE C0.LTD.,_
MARUTI GALU EELGAUM

« /. an

Ly : SRINANDA PACHAPUR1i§3,V_’1’hI:’)V” 1. D , *

THIS 1~.-ma. FILED U} “i~’?3{1} ” D? N 1 AiE,1T”‘AC§AINST

THE JUDGMENT AND AwARD.DATED:2s.’s;éo0$ PASSED

iN Ivi’\r’C a’ViO.”27t’i’:3i’.«§;’fn’)3 THE 5%
ADDL.c1v1L JUDGE ._(sR.DN.), .&-«.ADfD.L.MACT. BELGAUM,
AWARDING COMPENS£i’Ti€W* C)i7=__ ~RS..i,6’2.(l)6i–

INTEREST AT THE RATE VQ1″?V_6’§(6 P.~A.’ ‘FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL ‘rHE;DA’rn QF.PA”1’ME;l\!’T AND DIRECTING
THE AppE_eLA§§1?$ HEREIN TO Dmmsrr THE SAME.

trrHEsE ‘jg-NPPEALS;% DDMING oN FOR ADMISSION.
’13

{?§’)’fiRT…I}EL}’v”3RED THE FOL’.~”wING:
A. ~ J,’e_

These arise out of the common judgment and

D 28-05-2005 in M.v.c.No.1942 83 206912903 of

the ms. hieivn Judge (Sr.Dn) 85 Member. Add]. MACT.

ae1ga;.¢gfor short ‘MAC’l”).

2. The Managing Director. North–West=Karnataka Road

Transport Corporation. Belgaun; has preferred these appeals

calling in question the legality and validity of the findings
nworded by the MACT attzributing actionable negligence to

M

the driver of the passenger bus and the ‘def

compensation awarded to the injured – driver _

tmx (MVC No.1942[03) and the dependants’ V

Smt. Parubai(MVC No.2069/03).

3. Learned counsel for that
the MAC!’ fell in ermr meeeee of the
‘I’en1po–trax. while at Halalci
Cross, in a Iashisnd negligent noticing the
bus belongfinlgfito -11 t…..- ….L=:! l1igh’.=.*a_’,’,
e’a&”””t. nuuuxuing in
the of the Tempo-irax ought to

have more Vcz=,s__1eful*9nd cautious while driving at the

V. thrown all caution to wind. caused t

*th’e’»_addition, leamed counsel contends that the

ee;e.mum’teeeeeepeneaeen awarded by the mar is on the

V -V higher

~. Per contra. learned counsel for the claimants seek

ll to Sutain the impugned judsiment and awani as being well-

‘4 merited, fully justified and not calling fior interference. l J

U”\

U1

5. mime the the driver of fine»

examm’ ed as PW-2 while for hi ‘

examined as RW-1. The upeheehet

police documents Exhibits?’ F.i:i,1§. *P-fie the spot
panchanama. P-5 Inspector
to establish rneh ‘the bus belonging
to the to the claim for

‘ ….d .n”\….¢.:J:.._..4-“.’ the bmg.

‘ fir State Highway, wmeh was clear cf e…-my

mete: veiiicle. pmoeecied to cross the and having

_ _c1one…:io traversed a distance of 75% of the highway,_wi1enee

Vi “–.f1i:im the left side. the hue belonging to the appellant dniven

in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the hind lefl:

side of the Tempo-Irax causing the accident. In
contredisfinetion to this am} testimony. i§_._the evidence of

M

\

Ch

….’=1, the driver of the be who states tl’eat.–whe”t2’V:’he

reached the middie of the mad. ‘_:=aine’~gn .

the State Highway Even: the cross t

The evidence of RW-1 in the T »

thus: _ u A V
“At the it “about
75% efthe circle.”

7. does not dispute
the the bus in question was
on ‘ that of the Tempo-trrax, in its
seve1’ity;. Livctsteni side. To a question of this
,as place of impact on the highway,
e.._ 159. I3’…-

__J. _.____’.l:__’II__ 1.- 4. _’I___

S ‘1; peumcauy flu.-1’tf:_ the’: t”:itfit’:t. place

of imgaaeih’ fie that as it may. the fact that the vehieies were-

AA eatneged on the left side coupled with the etridence of we

= admission of the Drivers of the Vehicles. that the Tempe-

Trax crossed 75% of the State Highway and was on the edge

of the mad and the contents of the panchanama Exhibit P-2
disclosing damages to the vehicles. From thepmved facts. it

Wk

{J \

hibit P-2 the Ps.neh.=::-.ar~..a-

‘-I

is possibie to infer that the Tempo-irax d1’iven_”‘

crossed 75% of the mad, the state highway

belonging to the appellant d1’ivej.r_1…i.1_1_a “h1i;dV’.VI1c:E1i8€?31ut » _

manner dashed against the hintI’:.po1tieh

causing the accident. ‘l’his’V_i’s—p1ecie’e1’3V:rwhatrthev«–MAL’l’Vhaet’

done while moordingits oh__the ofinegligenoe.

No exception can be

8. Tim h4i.h.A.No.a416/2005
the driver” he awarded __Rs.22,O0O/3 as
it the nature of injuries
sustejned, of hosgyitalisation as

.2-. jur.ig.m.,.ezI.. a…d. nwmvi in

I …-….. .I..-…- .-..–..I

I3.-. £1(\
lW§dJ\II” [JG]. llflg

after deducting 1[‘3 towarcis personal expenses. the ivifiifi”

arrived at Rs. 1,200] – as the loss of monthly dependency and

It I

applying muitipiier 10, appliwblem age 69 mi’

of the deceased, awarded Rs.1,44.GGfl,’~ dc-f,

fl

dependency, to which was

expenses and Ra.5.000l- easihfor = L’

love and afiection and to to’
Rs.1,62.000[- with hitexfest the date

-1′ petition. 121; the evidence on

reefi-d. the dependants of the

deceased: be’ ‘Le.-.,eith:ei* e:_r:t_ra,-ordina11_qr._or on the

higher

The dapneall’ . merit and are accordingly.

amounts in deposit are directed to be