High Court Karnataka High Court

Kumari Lakshmi D/O Neele Gowda vs The Managing Director Ksrtc (Bts … on 16 December, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Kumari Lakshmi D/O Neele Gowda vs The Managing Director Ksrtc (Bts … on 16 December, 2008
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh


IN THE may aroma?’ <3? KARZ3~éA'l"AKA AT BA.?~£{}£g1§;€}R:g . J: ; A'

Dated this the 16"' (fay sfflecember , 2f}€i8_ _ ' V I

Befere

mg HQPWBLE we JEFSYYCE Lfiégafiri .. G 12;; .3e£&fsH'

Between:

Kurrzari Lakshmi, 25 yrs

I350 Neeie Gowda – _ .

E<'.§aSanz1ak1<iBayaiu V .

§ia11;akshipa}ya,Bang;1§6rz: f’} Awé13afii
(By sriKPRa;me:.1; ” V

Am ~~~~ .

Eviaziaging Bifegtér,’ ~ . % .

{BTS Divisi(m),’ Sh3;r1_thinegar’–«. _ _b
K H Read, Bangaicnfi: 25 ._ Resgondant

_{.By Sri DT%f’i_§;a§93;z1r:23z, ;Jxs::.«.}%_ %%%%% H ,

Afscelianeags Fzrsmppeax ,2 2m_’_ ‘$333; H

fiieé mzedcr S.i73{‘1} ef the 3’v§£)£fif Kfeiéclas éusi
praying ‘§QgIn£)di’f_3;’.__ £1152″ judgnant and award ciafed 21.3.2095 in
, V . V’}”}’4′;’19§?__befcrr§; me «MAST, Bangaigre.

_ This Fifsi Appeal camirsg on far Hsarirzg axis éay, the Ceurt daiivereé
” ‘§lii*_’fi31.’3£?’§’fZi11gIV

JUB GMENT

.–}Appea§ is figs the claimant sacking enhancement sf” ccsmpensatien

not satisfied with the quantum cf cmnpaansatimz awazried by the

V’ MACT? Eangaiere in 3vfi?C 7%? 1997.

‘W

The accident is (sf the year 1995. Q3: 14.111995 around

when fhe ciisimant was Waiting at Summanahaifi Bus $9, .

Sunkadakatie an Eviagadi Read, at that time, a B’;\!i’£’C. ‘Ekg-:53?”

481 asamra in a rash anti negiigant manager 19 iii; crxzjmsfrzkz .’3ifi?€:~.€:=f re-.:1;.i .’

as 3 resifit of which its flaunt tyre ran Q’€’s3§ :1}: hixifzyf” {E33 1sEua%;21§:1ni arffi £11.: %V

claimant sustained grievmis injuries. ;§€:’£.iV_€i:-i’:¢1; iiieég {E16
matter was ctmtestad by the .’:;éis-gag rc§é§%’aLni Vv§ssues, £115
Tfibuna} after enquiry having heki is the negligence
an the part ef the €§”§h¢ tpstai wmyzsnsatian af
R2173, ‘?5(}5-. ‘be__§.”i€;:4~’jt_”e “i§1.i3V;€.”.71Vz’:’a:és.:E«V1;”é1:>:#es§:’;«:7Vaé§é’:;:.’,_}¢._;§.3£’;i”i§;*li{ZtTi 01}er.._tE§a bagkg fibfafiififl over the buéiock and Zaaerated

A’a%3;>u€ 3 X 2 ems an the anai eiefi {_p€i’inium} and ixztesiiaa}

§nj§;§3″‘-i§;r.Awhié§2’_ afiéeratinn was cmduatefi and {iegicvw injury was thesra as

S1:¢.:h,_ Shir: gf?:i7£’§;’3;§f~§&§as dams. injury 3 was 33:51 is baa giamus in rzatazra. The

” .§:;.Psriman{ sfcgaiigssz suffered gseverse back irajuryz Having regaré {er the gzsiezvws

V’ i§§_’j§;.;r:g.,_si;:ifi”e¥§d E3}? the eiairnang she C£}iI§{i have 5631″; awarded anzzether

}__f§,£§{}{}f–. Likewise when the Qperatign was cemaiucteé, far the éaratfien {sf

. _’ ;f2’ea’$me::£ and ammmt sperm ievssarés medical expenses anefiéer R§’5,§}Q€};’~

2??’

wuid %}s;3 awaraied: and far ‘f’mun*, {ass czf earning aneather Rs. .1{}.:.€}€}€}:{gV,é_;{}:;.§:§,

awarfieai.

Tfaaxsg Ehii ciaémamf wixazzki bf: zzniiiirzd E;:§’ar§é

abn:..2€}{13j The V

irxsuter szhafi depesit the amm:nt,.;¥£Ehin t§:rc;a:–.fiz£2ni§z3. {firm i§:;iafy*.~

Appeal is acc<:=rJin,giy, 3.ii§i%ii%k:a;2:§:1: 3 ~