IN 'Hm HIGH COURT 012 KARNATAKA AT BANGALOR£..,_ ihted this the 16"' day erJanumy, 2009 2' 'f ~ Bcforre 1HEHON'BLEMRJD'SH(.'E HUI.b'3i4,DI MisccIIaneou.s Fvxtdpped Managing Directur Bangalore Meiropolitan Transpmft Corporation (BMTC),KHRr3a.d"'«. Shanthinagar, Bangalore ' 'M _ Appellant (By s:iARa»&shanka;f,'~Aav.) " V' V ' 1 52 j Sfo M.VMuma:,-;ya..#--21" " N Pallipattzlielgli .ThiuwaBavar Taluk, Vellore District mu Vi ..sm§Yog§§ani DfolateRaghavan ' 3o.jm.,_ CI.'i)=Sm_;zpw1, # 122, :6' A Main ' -,4" Black, Layout, Bangalore; 96 Rwpondents AA : Appeal is flied under 5.173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act set aside the awmi dated 3.12.2005 in MVC 4911 by the MACT, _ Bazxgaiorc. This First Appeal coming an for Ordm this day, the Court delivered '4 u ' '. €14: foliawing: Jib, JUDGMENT
Appeal is by the BMTC challenghg mgawasd hz§ACfI’,” VA °
Bangalore in we 4911:2001.
cam petition was filed by m; bgoirmfci the pk
appears the 2″” respondent claiming Gf fled V
another application stating thaf 13;: fati:ei’tiifiii years ‘hick such, she is
also entitled for compensation. 4’ in appeal on me
gonna that the rclatiofgship is Vtivie ‘Lslginmm and in such an
went, Vn(}xtT’:h#V’E?« isoxnpmsatmrn’ .
,’rhe_fact.§ m75.1’2.2dé1 around 8.45 pm while the doceaaacd was
” V. “‘gattitig. beam’ g No. KA ()1 F 1327 near Jeevanahalli
the mirror the driver moved the has in reverse
gag: to deceased feli down and the whee! of the bus ran over
who died on the spot. Later, the deceased was shified to
% ‘~1%fBs§s§~:in_g Hospitaf and post mm was condnctad Contending that the
‘ was eaming Rs.5,¢}()(M- as a masts: and his was the only soie earning
u complaint was filed before the Framer Town Police and a ciaim
petition was aiso filed for compensation. Matter was contested by the.
.3!»
BMTC. However, 3 stand was taken by the BMTC that _
unlawful gain (wrongful gain), petition was filed. rubumz. mg: « 4″‘
the accident was due to the negligence on
Question, awarded cemiifmsation of ;
Txiblmal ought not have awarded , C up in
appeal before this Court.
According to: £3 rwndtnx has not
pmoduced any the brother of me deceased
Rmhavan. and claimants l and 2 weave
living eise Zfrahereé’ %_2’~””*’ rcspondent had in her cross
examination, know about her faflaefs death only
‘when sh:-. advocate and also stating that asnper the
V. .jߤ;iaufmmt, the deceased was a bachelor and died, but, the
émmwnat by the 2*’ respondent staiing that her
A 1″a:fl1er in aééident and poinfmg out that there are two contradictory
” at the the of death the deceased was living aione and
clahnanis dependency on the deceascd weuld not misc and
awarding of interest at 8% is on the higher side and exccssivc, appeal
‘ } f % ~ ~ié f1led.
Heard the counsel representing the parties. Although notice
on 1″ rmpondcnt, he is not reprmented. Steps have been
respondent twice but, she remains unserved. In the ..
notice to 1″ respondent my not be necessary}
Claimants are contending me “deceased. V
However, as regards the “of §wm”£ted;”it’et3pems to be
not on the higher side. soeeeiete deposited by the
appellant and the so far. The fact
remains, in the claimants themselves,
it is for of competent court as to
their miatioosttip end the amount in deposit i.e., 50% be
transferxjecl to the ‘eeid amount be made available as and when
V’ «-the a.pgearV”before”the authorities seeking for withdrawing the
execution petition is filed for realisation of the amount,
wee’ peeefef being related to the deceased is produced by them and
‘else after. the order of the competent court as to apportionment,
Vt VA amount be disbursed by the appellant. Till then, the amotmt be
It –
With the above observation, appeal is allowed in
appenm has disputed me. relatiomhip ofthc claimants an ._ J
oppostutiiy shall beaffordedto the appellant ignizg
approadx the competent courtsecking f{}I’3 offlfihi ‘V
withthedeccased.