IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD.
DATED THIS TH)"; gm DAY OF FEBRUARY A
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A§}zAi}f::'1\i:;>"'§;U1EAf:R
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APEEAL ivo.72"6o/ 2006
BETWEEN:
North Eastern Kamataka a
Road Transport Corporation
Sarige Sadan, Gulbarga 0 I
by its Division Controller
Bellary Division A 0
Rep by the Chief'
, ._.EE ,,_._» »E . u.APPELLANT
{By Sri. F'. S. Da__ba:_l_iVand 'S'mt;A.$1;'n'1aga1'E Swamy, Advs.)
AND:
'E"ionnurappé1w.L I
S/o. Yellareddyu. "
Aged 41;' y'ea;rs "
"0 P,_/_0. '"'§':a1*u1j.Road ..... 14 v
' A . VSr»ir.aa¢g201r }3"e1&1a_I'y« .__
RESPONDENT
HaEiL1Eno:n-€V}§;areddy Sahukar, Adv.)
M1"«:AX,E10LEo 173(1) OF Mv ACT AGAINST THE
"AND AWARD DATED 27.09.2005 PASSED TN MVC
NS'O.4'8",{2004 ON THE FTLE OF THE MEMBER, MACT--1,
IBELLARY, AWARDENG A COMPENSATION OF' RS.1,18,707/--
'~V\]{T_H INTEREST AT 6% RA F'R()M THE DATE OF
'">.PRE:SENTATION OF THE PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
'",PAYMENT.
Ix)
TEES APPEAL coivmxio ON FOR ADMISSION T:H1,s':o)=n(,
THE comm DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
T316 2nd re’.$;por1dent who was the owneif. of the =ve’i1..i’c.1ei.iisp A’
{,’z€StiOI’1i1’1 the correctness aridsie alit of*the iud Irient and
q 55 V 5 Y -. ~i 3 . 1
award dated 27.09.2005 in MVC N5′;».:i’ja»,’20041
2. The facts in nut
The undisputed fact”is” when the
petitioner was __the Tirurnala Palace
House, Taluif KSRTC bus bearing
registration No. his vehicle in a rash and
negligent mannei’ and_dashepd-vagainst the petitioner on account
of whi.r:Ǥh ithe petitioner said to have sustained injuries. On
Vacctount of the.4injuries sustained, a claim petition came to be
3. facturn of accident is not disputed. Only
qiiantum is questioned in this appeal. Hence the grounds
in the appeal memorandum are considered. It is urged
DJ
in the appeal memorandum that compensation awarded
Tribunal is on the higher side considering the
occupation of the claimant. it is aiso contended that there” i
no documentary evidence placed before the’Trib.una}_ini.i:rde.1?.Vto’g
appreciate the claim of the claimant. also contended
the compensation awarded by the:.”‘Tribuna.l underll”*the”‘o’ther l’
heads are on the higher side. lt’..iS”l7!i1:_VI*?l”1lE,”~.1f conte’ndedV’that the
accident occurred on aceountof thVei”drunk”._eni status of mind of
the claimant hirnself vandihenceg see’ks.V_for settiiig aside of the
award.
4. and award passed by the
Court below: ‘per’ «P3 namely, FIR, spot mahazer
and charge she’et_,:V it is pr”ove”d before the Tribunal that accident
ii} qu’e–stioi.n. has occulrfedlvon account of negligence of the driver
li:;f__ respondents have not chosen to examine
ar1yi:?s_ritnesse’sl.l; A’:l’he plea now advanced in the present appeal
.,_’h,as remained as a bald pieading without there being any
“suppo’r’=ti1ig evidence either documentary or oral and as such
,.__l”lLhe;contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the
6
Compensation awarded itself is on the iower side. Sir1ce.’Lhere
is no crossflbgections filed, it wouid not be E1ppI”VQ}’)”‘F1iéVtC.:'”VIC?
consider for enhancement. Hence there is no merit.’i:7r’t}iie_ 1 Q
appeaL
The appeal is dismissed. s’V1’h_e axIie1_1r1é, in ,ci’ep0::.it id; be
retransmitted to {he Tribunai forthwith’. _
gab/