III THE HIGH COURT OF KARHATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED TIFHS THE 1531 DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 BEFORE THE Ir§(}N'BLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH B.ADI_.._' M.F'.A.NO.6244(g207 IMVC) M. . . .3 7 «_ IN MFA _£\_io.§244[20(}7: BETWEEN; Smtfihazadha Bee, Wfo late Abdul Raheem, Aged about 62 years, '~ _ j Residing at Cfu Sycd D:--1slagij:;" - No.48l8, Opp. Pamzrannfia Lr.:yo:;tf Nclamangala, if" ~. 3 Bangalore Rural V "V" " . . . APPELLANT """ hdv.) The Managing A _ BMTG, Eiogiiale Road-, _ " ' ' 'Banga1:§m~,.5§0 C527. 'A _ * RESPONDENT
‘V 9’ V(‘i.ByDi~SmtH.R.Rcnu1ca, Adv.)
This M;:F..A;”is filed U13. 173(1) of MV Act against the
*’«…j’;i-udégzxzcnt and award dated 1.12.2006 passed in MVC
, .VVNo.T?.953f..2OO5 on the 151:: of the XIX Add}. Judge, Court of Small
Cai1aee:.,_ Menzber, MACH’, Mehtapolitnn Ama, Bangakore,
(53Ci£H.,No’;1T), partly aflowing thc claim petition for
‘;}”:<":mpe1i$afion anti aeeking enhancement of compensation with
V _ 1–€2°}'o's"iI"1te1*est.
IN MFA No.8138lg(){)7:
BETWEEN:
Bangalore Metropolitan
Transport Corporation,
Boubltt Road, Shanthinagar.
Bangalore,
By its Managing Dimctor, _. _
Represented by its ”
Chief Law Officer. _ ‘ V
T. ….1i.PPELLAN”}’. V
(By Smt.f~I.R.Rcn§11-mu, Adv.) V
MD:
Shazadha Bee,
W/0 late Abdul Raheem, :
Aged aha-ut62 years, ‘
C/osyedbastagir, .. .
Noe4318,0pp: Lasrmit,’ k
Nelamansala, ” ‘
Bangalore Rural Djst.__ ‘
. RESPONDENT
‘ (By :3.ifi..H.»B.Sg)fi2api1r, Adv.)
This_-M.F.A.”is file-.1 U-ls.’ 1173(1) of MV Act against the
j1_1Li.gn1cnt«.?-{and awaztal _ datad 1.12.2006 passed in MVC
I*Io.79S8}’Q0(}5~.o1k the filebfthe XIX Add}. Judge, Court of Small
C£u_1se2S3* -. M¢nibt’»1’» ‘~–. MACH’, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore,
(SC€31′{i’i§€($.._AVax?a.!_:1’i;1g compensation at’ Rs.1,32,00()/- with
. L» izulxtrcsi P._21._ the dais: of yciiliuu (ill <1t~:},xJsiL
Thégc coming on for 'Hca;rin.g-IA' this fiay, the
C9iLr1 delive'1§ci;the following:
i.;A.Nc.1/2068 is faked for condonation ofdclay in firmg the
Aajfiplifitafion for recalling. I.A.No.2/2008 is filed fbr mcalling the
fcarder dated 22.9.2003.
M
2. It is stated that. due to inadvertence. the counsel has
not noticed the case and he did not comply with the ofiicc
objection in time. Considexiag the cause shown, the
dismissal is mcalled and both the matters are taken _
disposal.
3. Smt.H.R.Renuka is directed
100.5244; 200?. With consent, a.Ȣ0..afm 1.100.. 005.31%
disposal.
4. MFA No.5244/M9? ‘A ‘_V__c1ai’ma.nt for
enhancement, whepeée, filed by the
Corporation the quantum.
S. in a mad accident on
25.10.2005. At”‘abgmt claimant was waiting for the
b.u$&_at 101:3 stop, at that tixne, a BMTC bus
bea;ing«0g.KgA.01{F»35s7 being driven by its ciriver in a rash
_ and 031100 and ran over the left leg of the
T*:VVe§0imanf..””.4.s of which, she sufibxed fiacture to the left
ggrievous injuries on other parts of the body. She
V to Nelamangala Hospital and {mm them she was
, _ to Victoria Hospital. Claimant was inpatient from
L”e’V«A.é0.i0.2005 to 2’?.1.2006. Claimant has examined the doctor as
PW2- the Orthopedic Surgeon attached to the Victoria Hospital.
Considering the evidence, the Tribunal held that the claimant is
entitled for compensation of Rs. 1.22.000] -.
6. The Corporation has seriously quesfiggzééi’ “-.2.
involvement of the BMTC bus in the accident, H
of the Corporation is that, the bus was
am. to Nclamangala bus stop and the 7.:
bus is involved in the said accident
on %.10.2005, the driver of fine per
the schedule for that day -invvolvcd in any
accident. She further Nelartnangala
bus stop at I 1.1() at 12.35 pm. In
this regard ‘ as RW1. On
the basis AV counsel for the
Corporation <'.;A<511_téndetiVV._;£i1AAi§L1:,»:ts}i1s:I5:is itscif has left Neiamangara
bus stop at 1 1,.1o4"5.§§%, fffie {$1-:&si.:io11 of the-bus being involved in
1._1__.45 Nclamagaia bus stop does not
s§n~$ng§:us1y gave a. finding that the sync bus is
:z”~£nvolVc:’i mg }.at§cident It is also contended that, the
s. s[ss’s;;;sn;pensau¢sV_;§warded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.
contra. Icamed counsel for the claimant submitted
‘ , _ claimant has sufientd fracture of left kg in the accident
be disputed. as she was admitted to the Nclamangala
hospital and fnom there she was admitted to the Victoria
Hosgital. In the Wound certificate, discharge summary, there is
reference to the road accident and also refers to the BNFFC hes.
He relied on the evidence collected tinting the investigatioa’: ._’
by the poiice and submitted that, merely because 4′ .
that he left the Nelamangala Bus Stop as k V’
itself cannot be held that, the bus 11’§r_j_éte~ 7′
accident He also submitted that, is
highly inadequate, and no eompensatien. :i_.s– err: head
of loss of futuxe earning and evezlg-§t\=va1*ded on the
other heads is not reas<)nah]g ,…– '
8. in so is concerned.
Txibunal onthe the evidence on
reccrd. it is: V::_1ot police has registered the
case as per very same day, mahazar is
dmym. m; mre ex.I52.zeeeet1;e%Asé1ctoria Hospital certificate. Ex.P3-
the involvement of the BIWPC bus in
the accent on 26.10.2005. This is also reflected
izhe Hospital showing that the injury was due to
A ‘ considering these material documents
«.:::’}:1§§§;.’.Af::§1,ii1a.i–‘.’i:i1at the bus is involved in the said accident. May be
_ 1; variation in the timings, but that may not be the
“”‘:Ae<5:tiVeIuei:s:e proof, some times the bus may leave the bus stop
Vslittle later than the schedule em. RW1 though is examined and
Broduced EXSRK to R3 shcwinfi the entries in the wa'i;'–hi}1', but
at the same time, conespending document and the injury
sufiezed by the claimant also Show that the accident was argued
11.45 am. if the medical documents are to be accepted, '4
my opinion, the accident has been proved V'
doubt. As far as way-bfll and other documents 'A u
the conductor of the said bus would
may be said that, same times …ent1'ie~3'
according to the trip sheet, actual
difierence of time. Then: is T in accident
when the documents .1-mow due to the
ewe bus, I am 9:" has considered
the and' ease andihgasi. V
9. As far as is concerned. though the
Tribunal of Rs.50,000/- towards
pthexi\iv’isae,___ifvit is calculated at 15% of disability
tefizc fiirhele would not be much more than
10.”$<;j}n:s3;ti4e1'i11g the same, on the enhancement of
I find no reason ta interfere with the order of the
.e1f;-i1:'u;A;:,a1}% Accordingly, the appeals fixed by the claimant and the
._ . stands dismissed.
The amount in deposit in MFA 530.8138} 200′? is directed
to be transferred to the Tribunal.
Sd./-#
Iudge
*AP/ –