High Court Karnataka High Court

Imtiaz Ahmed vs Managing Director Tamilnadu … on 17 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Imtiaz Ahmed vs Managing Director Tamilnadu … on 17 February, 2010
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao Gowda
 

IN mp; HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,  

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY: 01¢.I§EB_RU_é§R*k;'201.0' 

PRESEN$:fl° 
THE HONBLE MR. JVLISVFICE 1{:s.REE_15v}1A§§"RA:'3
  ' '
THE HONBLE MR. J«U'sT1'C_Sv}A:..N'§'§%;;N'U»Q0PAm GOWDA
 VM.F,A';N'O:.:V2140.7205?-1 
M4..F'«..VA.I¥§o_._36~v16,/2Q.O4,«--M}F.A.N0.3618/2004.
=i  ' '*--.I\/{.F§;f?,I\:'e..V{362'Q/2004
M.F.;a';1ito;2':;4o /:fg;uo;é'J:;\av) 
 V' V. % V' "
IrI1tiazAI;1.L1'r1.ed'. 1  S

S / Q.' 'i.:e._t.e AbG"11,_1 ShLlkbOF.
Av_géI:! about 49 

 .R/all Nt).2&§Q_,
2 ' VVV4?"-,Maa,ih~,A '1e'¥'BEoCK.
A ~.. K_01'ama11gal  i V V 
=Ba;:1'ga10£'.éw.-- 560 034. : Appellant.

{HQ s;~_i7._H'oi_'ia <3: Holla. Adv.)

A' =Mai1agi.r1g D1'1'ecI.0:*,

Tar11i]r1ad L1 State 'i'1'ansport

u " "C0rpo_1'ati0r1 11.6..

(Salem Dix/isi0n--H)
Dharmapuri - 5.
'1'ami1r1adu. : Respondent.

€%%//hm

[By Sri. B.Bopanna, Adv.)

MFA filed u/S. 173(1) of IV!-‘\’/”‘a–:it:« f l
and award dated 7.11.2003 pasged £11MV~aeN0.,4*l.89’/v2_O0O on ‘

the file of the XIX Addl. Srn’a1AixCI.1uASes Qgmdge ,&.”1v.rjACiI’,

Bangalore [SCCHJ7], partly_4_all0wing”*1;he elalimvvpetifgion f.’_Ol’;

compensation and seeking en_ha.nCenier;t 0.f_cQni”pe’nsa’ti0n. ‘
M.F.A.N0.3615/200%}
BETVVEENR

The Managing ADiVrecto1i”” _

Tamilnadu Sta’Eel.Trar1_sp01’1V*’V
Corporati_c;.n’–..Lt(:l;;l;_ Salem Djy–i£_; V
Dharn1ap’uri¢-636V7″OE’3. ”

New Bel0n’g§ngf1’_QV Salein Divi.s_1’_Q11,

Siiuateel V at No. 121,} JRamakrish._na’ Road,
Salenva-63600?–TainlI1:lad’tr=.._ E’:t.ate. : Appellant

[By M /3… l?3I9DS’Assr§(:§alieea§ J
SrI.’*£3. ‘BQp’ar.1u.a, Adv.)

£§\:’§D1 2 « ….. 14 v

‘ “vSVi’n»t’;vl.2aibunx1isa Siddique.

T’ 0. I;aLe-‘ Mohammed Siddique.

@ Sjrldaiiaare Sulaiman Lokhanawala.
vA§§§€d”.V’ab0ut 56 years.

2. ‘S-henaz,

D/0. late Mohammed Siddique.

@ Siddiaare Sulaiman. Lokhanawala,
Aged about 34 years,

Shaheen,

D/0. late ]VIOhElI11fI1€C1 Siddlque,
@ Sic:1diaa:’e Sulaiman Lokhanawala.
Aged about 31 years,

‘a;

4. Zonra.

D/0. late Mohammed Siddique.

@ Siddiaare Sulairnan Lokhar’1a–\va1afi.,

Aged about 27 years.

All are residing at No.34/B…’ _

Shahtaj New Era Society.

Market Yard, Pune–37 _ ~. &
Maharastra State. ‘:’ Respondents

[By Sri. D.S.Sridhar. Aei§r..i. *
MFA filed t1/ of «algfiairist the Judgment.
and award da:’edV_’7.1:i_.2OO3 passed ~in__..l?i/IV Ne-.4191/2000 on
the file Of. S-rnall Causes Judge 8: MACT.
Bangalore _.-‘[SCC’£~{+17,l’;: ‘=awa:*;,lifng compensation of
Rs.3.67_.OOiO2/”~’ 3«:;x_zit.h __i”nt_ere’st____VatV58% pa. 8: directing the
appei’lant”l<1.eff.ein ' pay» the same.
M.F.LLig.3613g?2%mg.%V_:'—

BETWEEN;-_ * _ A S S

l\{I’ana,g1’ng f)ii*e-et’o1′.

” « Ta1nili1ad_u’S_tat,e Transport
‘ ;.Corp<";1fa'i.io'r3ALtd. Salem DiV–}l.
D'l1aAfl13.é1pvu'i'iT~536 705.
'' Now Belo'njgir'1g to Salem Division,

Si't_uat.ged at'No. .12, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem~S36007, Tarnilnadu State. : Appellant

it (B"y..&M/ls. BPDS Associates.

Sri. B. Bopanna. Adv.)

__:lAND:–

imiiiaz Ahmed.

S/o. Late Abdul Sh.ukoor._
Aged about 50 years.

igf
.2′

ii

Residing ate No.507.


8'" '8' Main Road,

4"' Block. Koramangala.    é "
Bangalore 560 034.      

(By M/s. Holia & Hoila, Adv.)

MFA fiied u / S. 173{1′,’AV_ot7,I\/IV against’the’vJ1.1dgme1:tA’

and award dated 7.11.2003 passed in MV”No’.;4i’:39/2000 on
the file of the XIX Addi. snia11_ Causes ~ Judge? 81 MACT,
Bangalore [SCCH¢1?), .v’ai%vardi11g’.._ comvpensatioii of
Rs.2.31..ooo/~ with i’=ntie1_’es_t 8%gp.a. ész directing the
appeiiant herein to pay the seinniei

M.F.A.No.3t32€);/§.!00€l}A

~
The Ma11}igiAIl 5g Difeo:,o1*’,;_”

Tann1i}1_nadi;1 Statev-Ti’fan’sip_o1*i: ‘
Corporation Ltd; ;v Div”-II.

Dharn1apu1i’i-636 7′”Q5.»– V

Now Beloiiging .E’:Vof.Saivein’ Division.
Sitiaated at No.12. Ramakrishna Road.

saiem.-.g3350o7. T21’I1’Eii11adLl State. : Appellani

A Associates,

a ” _BV[_Bopanna, Adv .}

AND: ” ‘

.. Rafi1<tTabani @ Rafik.

S/o, Gaffer.

A =. Aged about 59 years.

. ‘§Residing at ‘Noori Bang’,
_..nB/1i1A112.’C’Wing.

Opposite Sarijayiiagar.

Muiiibaifune Road,
MumbaiA4O0 612.

Thane District. Maharastra State. : Respondem.
J’;

L5

{By M / s. Holla & Holla, Adv.)

MFA filed u /s. 173(1) of MV act against ta; Judgixnentj At t
and award dated 7.1 1.2003 passed_;i,11 No’.’4v1-913/2000 on W
the file of the XIX Addl. Small :Caus’es_ Judge MACT;

Bangalore (SCCH–1’7}, awarding s compensation’-si.___

Rs.1,93,000/– with interest at 8°/o?__p.’a_. frornsthe :date~..pof._V

petition till realisation.

THESE APPEALS coM1Nl’G-.oN; Fora THIS

DAY, SREEDHAR RAG; 4%,. DELI Et2.Eo__THE FOLLOWENG:

«Jr .U-Dwfiijfiim N”1~

The ‘:_MFA'”‘*——1\lo.2140/O4 {MVC

No.4189/ ttrasllllauliiiiliatelloffthe car. One Mohammed

Sidditgi warsxthe; At Yedavanahalli N.H.7

near Anekallptliexcarpwas«proceeding towards Bangalore, from

sidelwards entered The bus belonging to Tamil Nadu

«State Corporation {for short ‘TNSTC’) was coming

A ‘V also proceeding towards Bangalore. The car

after eiateririg the main road was hit by the bus belonging to

AA bus resulted in death of driver and injury to the

l inniates of the car.

2. The petitioner sustained fracture of 2136 and 3″‘
rib, head injury with neurological complications. The

evidence PW4- doctor who treated the patient immediately

€/

6

after the accident has stated that at the time of

petitioner was advised to have follow up check!uvp’-bylaeye’

surgeon for his blurred vision and alsoby-, neu_1lfo.surgeon’.g

The petitioner has sustained blurredfyisiozn of b_otri».e3/eds: ._

percentage of disability for blurijed, vision .of.,one’isl’ 10°/oil’

in wc. Act and for both the'”eye.s: the disabi’1it},r-Kivould be
20%. The total body disability, it is

just and proper”y:asse_ss disability at 25%.

§ppetit1lonei=vl.was’ll a textile shop. The
income tax .a1_’1nual income is at Rs.88000/–
for the operiod. V l999–2000. The income loss

proportionate» would be Rs.22000/– p.a. The

agedwabout 46 years. Hence l3 multiplier will

of future income on account of disability

w’o.uld,__v ‘ be .fRs.22 , 000{incoIne)X 1 3{multip1ie1′}=Rs.2,86,000 / –.

.A Thellpetitioner has produced medical bills for Rs.l,50,000/–

0′ by way of additional evidence bill for Rs.30000/– is

produced. In all, the petitioner is awarded a sum of

Rs.200000/~ for medical and incidental expenses. The

petitioner is granted a compensation of Rs.50000/– towards

V’ wtoivards Bangalore

7

pain and agony. Rs.25000/~ is awarded towards

amenities and future discomfort on account of

petitioner may be under treatIner;tAl’Vor’sb0ut.;ii2§fo’._months;–»g

Hence, Rs.l5000/– is awarded. towardslloss of ‘income ._

laid up period.

4-. The ealgsolh appeals. MFA
No.36 18 /2000′ tiled iagainst against the
appellant. _ “”‘ilIo.2 1 40 /2004 has
challenged The tribunal has
found that _’ occurred on account of the
negligence’ of the “bus. The charge sheet material
discloses thatvof the car entered N.H.7 to proceed

from the sideways. Almost at the mouth

_ the accident has occurred. The sketch of the

scenev.__”of.V the occurrence discloses that there were brake

.. marlis hf the bus to an extent of about 45 ft. In the criminal

Q case the driver of the bus is convicted. The permitted speed

limit for the heavy vehicle on the National High way is 60

km. per hour. The presence of brake marks would suggest

that the bus was travelling at a high speed than the

permitted limit otherwise, there would not have

marks. This suggests the element of negligenceon K

of the bus driver.

5. On close scruti~nly’«-..there*~,_is some” ‘.Varnou1f§t def

negligence on the part of of” also. It is
incumbent upon the L c9.1fl..lAto~have observed the
vehicular movement of N make an entry.
The accident, the car entered
and traveledeaatl that we find that there is
__ to an extent of 25% and
negligence’ of “the TNSRT C is around 75%. The

trilzguraal, has’-hovvever. held that the accident occurred solely

thewnegligence of the TNSRTC which appears

:”inVcorrevct. Therefore, the aggregate compensation

assessedltisAlRs.6,06,0()0/-. 25% is to be deducted towards

.. contributory negligence on the part of the car driver. Hence,

it TNSTC is liable to pay compensation of Rs.4,54,500/«~

with 6% interest from the date of the petition till payment.

66/

9

6. MFA No.3616/2004 pertains to the award in

respect of the driver of the car i.e., Mohammed The

deceased was aged about 56 years. The

income tax assessee. He was Working as a4″rnarl{et_ing’i’oo;’u ‘

ordinator in Engineering Works.”-BIis”_’ineorrte is asse_ss.ed–:at

123.4000/– pm. The wife”and._thrée Vdaug§ite’r.s””-hate filed’

petition seeking comp_ensation.u:’

7. As per ‘is to be deducted
towards personal exp’enses;. Would enure to the

benefit of f’fhe total loss of dependency
X12 {months} X 9 (multiplier)

.~;;;;s.3§t.45,o’0o,/g.” The Wife is entitled to Rs.25000/– towards

the petitioners together entitled to Rs.25,000/–

it expectancy and Rs.1000O/– towards funeral

Aexpensesd” A In all the petitioners are entitled to a totai

AA eonipensation of Rs/£05600/–. In the said amount 25% is to

“be:deducted towards contributory negligence of the car. The

petitioners are entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,0-41,200/–

with interest at 6% 13.3.. from the date of the petition till

payment.

10

8. M.F.A.No.3620/2004 pertains to tvhelaward

passed in respect of one Rafik Tabani on a=;’courit’._iof:_.Vtlie

personal injuries sustained by him in the He has

sustained multipie fractures of and i

left side 3 to 991 rib. The t1’ib’unai has awarded-5 conipefjgsatiorip

of Rs.193000/–. The injured’i’s…ag’ed aboL1t’p”5;”;V’:ye1a.rs. He was
working as a marketing.._co–r5rdinatoriin.an Engirieering firm.
His income is assessed ‘at The total body

disability is .asses.’sed at 20%. “f[‘tie:_”in.con1e loss proportionate

to The total future loss of
inconie ‘wou1d”bé= .Rs…s;oej{‘1ncome}X12(month}x9(mu1t1p1:er)w
Rs.86,4(lO*<,{b-. is entitled to Rs.3000O/– towards

agony;v-.–.Rs.l2000/- is granted towards ioss of

' .»VamenitiesV*a:nd_ future discomfort on account of disability.

.' Medical are produced for Rs. 1,10,000/–. Rs.1,30,000/ —

is "granted towards medical and incidental expenses. The

~ A aggregate of compensation assessed is much more than what

"awarded. Hence, the request for reduction of the

compensation rejected.

E E

In that view. the above appeals are dispI6ée’d .’_0§.’: _i;1.1r.;LFr2%;

terms indicated above.

sa,=