High Court Karnataka High Court

M Renukaradhya vs The Divisional Controller on 9 March, 2010

Karnataka High Court
M Renukaradhya vs The Divisional Controller on 9 March, 2010
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao Gowda
 

IN THE IIIO-II COURT OF KARNATAKA. 1  

DATED THIS THE 9%; I)A\;«*»~O..Fi MA'_ IiO'.I{AI,j"é;Q    
PRESERT 7":   Vn  x.h
THE HONBLE MR. J'i'iS:'?E'J.§:E 
 I #%  L

THE HONBLE MRI ;III%;3TICL::A5I\I';'VE1$I'UI3OPALA GOWDA
. gvI.F.A,  .7'23m;O»F_ 2"c'_»vI)a'I"A"I':3:\"/I"\f)

BE:TwI«:I:I\I';{--..:V 

SR1 M. RENU'i£fi§RADHYA}'I--' «-
AGE: .I38'IYEA;-RS. '-2:;   f
S/O.:._MUI\HV'Ei._EiRA'iA}-i,_  _ _
R/O. NERALUR' V-I.I,IIA:O;;__, " _
ATTIBI;I,E;'-HOI3.I,I;  -   
ANI:KAI,'1'AI.L3K.'_ 2 " . 
I3AI\I_OAI,OI'<I«:V RUI'%AL*DIS'I'RIC'l'.
* ' 'I APPELLANT

 -  A (£;'Y:":sEgI.jMV.I_R_ NANJ--uN:)AOOwDA & ASSOCIATPJS. ADVS)

':.'H"I§' I)NIf§IOfKIAL CON'l"ROLI.ER.

KA.RNA_;I'AKA STA'I'E£ ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION".
B.T.S,. DIVISION.

  I<.EI\IOAL; HANUMAN'I'HA1AH ROAD,
.. BANGALORE W27.
"  WREESENTLY BANGALORE; METROPOLITAN
'TRANSPORT CORPORATION,

BY ITS DIRE:C'I'OR.

' " ""K.H. ROAD.

BANGALORI*L' -- 27).
RESPONDENT

[BY SMT’. LOKESI*”I\N;’\RI’ FOR SR1 A. RAVISHANKAR. ADV)

°-&appéaM=

THIS MFA 1s FILEI’) U/S 173m OF_ME?2%,C’i¥.}’aG}xibN’STF
‘I’HE3 JEEI)GIVI.E3N’I’1–\_1\}D AWARD Ii)A9«.3.D: 09,074.04,;*Ass{a:O,1N ‘ ;
MVC NOJ379/94 ON THE §«’11;;«:, OFTHE =1 ‘.A_1:)Iit;1V,_%. cggvju,

JUDGE {sR.DN) AND MACMV, E;zAN;f’:~:.Ti’1’IO1\fi “FOR.

COMPENSATEON.

This appeal is comm_?”~On*,_i’Or }1’e21.1fir1,g5t.his day.

SREEDHAR RAO. J…”‘Lig_=:&1ive£’ed {Eats fovlsiowing:

The _Vé_.pp§§–I1’e1I1i’,V”»1;_p€f.iEiO1’2€2i’ Vsifiisisained fracture of

nonwfatal i.njur;?§-gs in’ a n?1o.rO1*Vv¢hic1e accident. The claim
pelsition is disxrlissed ‘(.)n”-E;_he ground that the petitioner has
not 131*’Oyéd_ the: V ‘-;ei(::réjd’e_11″‘1,’ and iI1V01V(“2}’I1€1’1I. Of the bus

belongixag fin,the”‘res3:)Ondem. Hence. the pet1’1.iOne}: is in

2; facts disclosed that. the actcicient. is Occurred

c)r1 ‘ 02″;-V(J’6″.’1’§9¢1 at 7.30 gun. at Hosur Main Road. Near

“Ki3i.§.£igEAi1&1hEi}1i Gate. The p€;+t,i£.iOner was prO<:eed1'r1g On mOt:O1'

in q'ut2su'On. The BTS Bus said to have hit the

" "petitioner.

‘JJ

3. The petiimner was takeii to the hosp_i_ial for

lre.am1er1t imniedielieiy and he is treated in the h()_4:3pii,a,l2.’~VT11e

wound Certificiaie II1£1}’K€d discloses that i11e–~2aCei’d–e’1′:tfiias,

occurred on accou’11E. of faii from bike. The .oof1’1p:E’aifitv.is.g1’aIeri” .

to the police belatedly after one».__111Qnt.I*:’1 i’ro’n1{heV:{i.§it’e:Ve_of

incident. The bus number is ShOVV1’1″‘.iIl’i}1€ FI’R._do__noi§ t:a21i}f..Vu>

The bus number is shown as pet..ition also
the same bus flulI1bdi’,’i.S:i’- giv-em; 1L3uu’i:.,_’t_h’e.Vpemioner amended
the petition to show 3222. The BTS

addui§’,ed _2e\’/ide_z3(:§i«:j ui;o”~.___sEf;o_:v {hail bus bearing No.
CKK–3£;Z.?}2′ \2Vv’c3.’sv._r21o-if’pi.ied.”i;:fi the said r0u’:.e. In View of the

same. the pet..i’Lion7’i.s disfnissed. The dismissal of the petiluicm

, is*so1,15rid and pr()’;V3″e17.2 Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Ed/=4
$3383

Sd/-

IUDGE

.5%1\?§\/I*