High Court Karnataka High Court

North West Karnataka Road … vs Smt Papamma W/O Late Govindappa on 18 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
North West Karnataka Road … vs Smt Papamma W/O Late Govindappa on 18 March, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
-1.

Dfllilnfirn 1: an n 2 -.un--'.-'2'. _.'--._
-u v . ~

11-: T'n"£': HIGH "'uG'b'R'i'- Oi'  

DATED THIS THE 18th DAY..OF4MA,RCvH;..j2C08;_   A

BEFORE,       %
THE HON'BLE MR.JUs':':c3E 

 . 9 102-39x}9fli35  

-a n [I 0 7. 5'51} ' 'JVJ.

1'3ET'v'v 

NORTH WEST FJXRNATAKA ROAOk},_ 'A

TRANSPORT CORPORATION"  _ 
CENTRAL OFFICL?-._.. ,z}0%u R051); R .
HUBL1       
BY rrs  DiR_EC_Z'PO'R.___ 

----..--m

  . 

=2 SR1 GURUMUTHRY

W/’O:v’I_.A”‘FE GOVINDAPPA

R/0-DPPOSITE TO CHAMUNDESWARI TEMPLE
Bsminn ARADHYA saw MILL
B” M THOTA
TUMKUR

s,-‘O LATE OO\.r:N.O.A.

AGE MAJOR

R;O OPP’GS}’}’E TO CHfu’viU’N1’3ESVv’ARi’i'”i\fiF’ E
BEHIND ARADHYA saw MILL J _ _I
B M ‘T’H(7T’A

TUMKUR UK

Ra

III’

3 SR1 MANOJKUMAR ca: ivi ‘MAR
S_IO GNANAPRAKASH
R/O SADEPURA, SIRA GATE .–
‘!’UM.K_UR, OPPOSITE TO BUNGLOW
TUMKUR is ‘

4 THE BRANCH MANAGE-R _ , _
ORiEN’PAL}NSURAN{3E,C0., ”
T.G.M.C. BUILDING ” N
131’ FLOOR, J.c.F:OAO
TUMKUR

(By sn : B C _SE}§fFHAE;}§N§Af<A_O««iF'QR.V324$; " )

THIS 'MFA'i3I;;5:LE;)_'u.1s.r173{1).OF MV AC1' AGAINST
THE JUDGM'Eii~_i"if A'v'€F:RE;'…')ATEL\:20A=Q5 PASSED IN
Mvc No.»62i2;_97"–~r;N T.HE__ F1LE._QF THE PR1… CIVIL JUDGE
(SR. ON.) &O'AIsgAO:fi, 'T'UieiKUR,_AWARD}NG CGMPE-l\!S;|.T!QH
OF R's.2'-_.57,o00fi.~u 'LESS"*~ ._ INTERIM COMPENSATION OF
Rs.50,000;– i.'e_.," RS.2»,O"F,0'J0]- WITH iii'T'E'RE'S'i" AT 8%
P.A.F1=«:ON1 DATE QF"PETFFION TILL PAYMENT.

"i"HiS him cerwsum ON PG?! HEARING THIS DAY.

_ . _ 'T305' OOURT MADE-mm FOLLOWING:

frhe N6: as. was. Road Transport

AA Qorbaréttion has flied thi'- appeal assai1..in.g tlruz

*A.V_"e0'fi'ec111ess and validity of the Judgment 'and award (iii.

20.4.2005 in MVC 522/97 of the Prl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn)

& .A…d_1..MAC'l', Tumkur, that short 'MACT'. I rug
L) \

\

23$

2. An examination of the iinpugilecl’

and award discloses lack oi’ V’

I-“r ,

consideration of relevant nppr-ocintion<_

s"'te t'i"t tlie "'dg"1i1oni 'nIis"1'eoiiv'iiilf1o.iI1fi11nities;V

It is elsnw e..–V…-_=miri—-tl1a;'g'iv£i*f=".c$ "arson" ''3

#-

suppofi    quasi judicial
aumorifico    jurisdiction is

essential ._ first it is calculated to
prevent’ or arbitrariness in

re_:_._;11_i..g,r .11: “L-.,.,.,lusions. The 9% search for reasons

fi1€3J&~lJf.hOI’ity on the alert and minimise chances

of infiltration of personal bias or

«V in conclusion.

in * In my opinion, the impugned Judmiont and

K is wholly unreasonable, perverse and

unsustainable. I u of

J)”\

Like

-4-

The appeai is allowed. The

and award is set-aside and the ” V’

the MACT for fresh considerelgioéd ” ._

reasonable opportunity ” L’

mncerned. Regan? is ‘fi’–.:”ifi”””‘t’3’t.i1’ii’.

in deposit along with Lee rpngnwith.