1:»: THE Hififi came'? 01? KARNATAKA " H' V
CIRCLHT BENCH AT' DHARWAD '
mzrau Tms mg 113% my o .::*A2a.L,:<;Us4;?15§(:{§;¢<»'
PRESENT: I
1~i{)N'BLE MR. JUS'IjI::E K.;s:.,.:<;EsHAVANA1EzAf{A;\%3A
H()£*£'BLE MRS. JUS'fiCi§}-1$5A§lJUA¥;AV_§3}{_Ei§}Qfi:1§"v
M.F.A.N€).348§3 %
BETWEEN:
NQRTH WEST §€;'AR%i;%TAKA, R<3jAs-- "
TRANSPOR'F_{§ORi?C?§é£&TIO?§I'; «-
CENTRAL «fI}'F'I?'I€3E,f;
GOKLFL R0-5D,_--
HUBL}, 'A ._ '
BY ITS MANAGING DiVRE'f§i'Q'R.._ '* APPELLANT
[BY s2j<'i*mmé _ V.?.§{1'fL§{ARNI, c.v1.3A¥A KUMAR 35
: .-r:..p.L1:q:':;.-AER_Ae:;, AD"v'S.}_"_'__'
Azéagx
u.
2. smt.%ig.1j\.¥'r ;'~.:;:%.__1 ' .
~..'=.,R,'EsPQNmN'rs
(BY sR§.MAL1:~:A_§'J:}'1€ »~M*i'i;:§1 ?, ;mV..).?'
TH1s*..M.§?;A; E'S':'F§L§1.[§"--1_}";'----S' 333(1) 09 MV. ACT AGA§NS"i'
THE aU1::~GMEN'1' AND mf&*.AR--Q":s.A*?E9 17.2.2003 PASSED IN Mvc
NO.84[199"f '0;~z"f1'1~{E:_ i+'m§.f"_.»-01+' THE 1 ADDL. DESTRICT 6:,
SESS§€)NS'~_ JU{)GE_) m~1ARwAD, SITTING AT HUBLI,
PARTLY 4§§LLOWING THE CLAIM PE'I'I'I'1ON FOR CGMPENSATIGN.
.' .A "m{11s_ 'A {A&ef£.}?A.'A.V COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
K§:$H.§vAz§A1§AYzx;fm,, ...r., I)EL§V"E'.RED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The”N_.K.V.K.S.R.T.C. has fim this appeal quesfionmg the
‘.2″§.’fld CGI”2’6(:t33€SS 0f thf: judgmtmt dated 17.2.2003 passed
V’ the 1 Adclitionai Distzrict and Sessions Judge 55 MACT, Dharwad
” ._ MVC.No.84/199?’.
@
0 Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein being the
aw-
children and parente of one Basavaraj Kamadoifi Z V’
gefition seeking compensation from the :eé§j::e’nde£;tn .;.1dez'”i*iI1V fer’
death of said Basavaraj Kamadoili in __ fiébfiele
that occurred at about 3.30 9..iO»_19’E3é$’*_:o§ii; I{i1z:i.’dg01-‘VV
Laxmeshwar Road in front of ShiVansaifi’– to the
claimants, at the time of aceflidez;t,”$;§’:i<V:{ Bé§a*=1§31*a}' Kamadolli was
proceeding as a pfliigsn' xgiderbfi' '~I~.VfIve<:2.§1dv£9. fiietor cycle 'bearing
registration Ijddexix. bytWz1e Fakirappa G.
Malawaé KSRTC bus bearing
registrafion from opposite direction anti
dashed against njIsof£Vc.;a.1*Af:’j¢=”b\(:V1’i’:’.bLVas 3. result, Basavaraj Kaxnadelli
sjizstajnedi ‘tbwrhich he succmbed. Aceorciing tea the
_ ;é:t “tiie. ‘time of accident the deceaeed was an
‘L-.A_._ag1’ieuh:1iiet g.f]f§c:> he was a helper to an electrical contractor
“aii vseurces, he was earning 3 sum of Rs.5,G0{)/- ta
menth and he was the only bread earner of the famii}-2*.
VM The petition was eoniested by the resgpondent therein. 01::
asézessment 0f the oral and decumentaxy evidence, the Tribuxzal by
S “judg;::a{:ni under appeal held that the accident was solely due to the
V
negligence 9f the driver of KSRFC bus. Iiaving
material placed by the claimants, {ha Tlibunal by
income of the cieceascfi at Rs.3,QO0/ ~ asgészéfiéed .1035
aft Rs.3,6(},0O{}~{)O and awarded. R$,.20,Q(v}Q’*(:}Q’A.3.1I1dé1f ‘CCI]V€iIfi€ii%é1 V
heads. Thus, the Tribunal, in a11′;–v%.L: éw;ard§{£–. :2s…3j;vs5’;:§é{:>éo as
compensation. Being aggrie$9’esi jgdgééflt awanél,
the apptzllaxxt has presented on the grounds
that the findings of.Vt33£é ééfiéfiéble negligence is
perverse and §’3’£é€fiC€ on recoré and
quantum of compéflazatidn awardad is on the higher side.
4. UponVV”s_§:rvjc<§V' cf 'of this appeal, the rasspondeznts
hgve théir learned counsel. We have heaxti
1€a1néd.,coLt.11s::is f0r both sides and perused the mcords.
;:§31;£1£3.AT::be seen fmm the records, in respect of this
. _Tj'_:«…aéci;ient, thfi 'gxsiice have filed chargesheet against the ciriver of the
riém' of the scooter. Ex.P.2 is the sjgaot mahazagr.
V" an eyfi: witnesse to the accident and I-?'.W.3 was the rider of
V _ meter cycle. Both of than? have spoken as to 110W the accident
occumedu Accentling to these Witnesses, the K,S.F<*.T.C bus camxe at
W
a high speeii and dashed. agaiust the motor cycle. P.W.2 has not
been cross examined by the {earned ceuneei far the reS13bJ_fi:§.ent.
Thue, his evidence has remained unchalienged. Acecg"Ix;';£;3:Vg'__'__E__1;;i’~ i}5i1;e’_’__to aiieeredit his
testimeny. :’V’i”I”ie ‘deiver was examined as RW-1
311d aceordifig V_fisi_Le1<the motor cycie himeeif éaehed
against the bus;'E;xee;:;t 'tfhile-V evieience, there is zrmthing on record to
the ridAei~e.._f…the motor cycle dash:-zzci against the bus.
The eoVfi"iente__<5'f — spot. mahazar cleeriy indicates that at the
Vaceide::1f'spoi,' tyre marks to the distance at" 35 feet from
tliie place Qf"vae.ti:1a1 eollisicm. The bus has gone to the wroz1g
dashed against the motor ejgeie. Having regard to the
_V em} "and! Heiocumentaxjg evidence, We are of the opinion that the
' has righfly' held that accident was solely due to the rash
negiigent éiriving of the KSRTC bus driver and there was me
zifigligfince 01' <:0::1tributo:3r Izegligence on the part of thé: rider ef the
mater cycle. We see no errors committad by the '1':'ibu:1alV?§;1 Tt:his
regard. Therefore, the Tribuna} was jusfifaed in _
negligence of the: tiriver of KSRTCZ bus was .V
accident.
5. As noticed easrlimr, t1m_TT;ibufi’a:_ ‘::.v1;i1eTV.;:s3¢’sé.:n§;
quantum 0f cemmnsafion has citjceased at
Rs.3,G{}O–{}0 pm’ memth ;..3rd tavvééaxflvs pérsonai
expenses 9:” the deceased, has _ tfikéfl 1:nc¥i1i}11§.’.~’n1com€ of the
deceasedf at 3;av:iI_1g mgard to the saga of £116
deceased as Am.,:;1itio11é:z:i_{Viii –f§”é:–. §¥:;:;§% momitm, has COI’I’€C’ULy applied
the muIt:E}:;1is1fAof .vth’tis, file Tribunal has arrived at total Ioss
:.g’,f’a¢gc;iza,%n::y~ Rs.3,€3{}”,bi30-00 and also awaxrisci Rs.20,0€}(}-OO
unéi gr v(.;QI1VE”:i’£EiQ1R€%1lT.}€i¢=adS.
to tha facts and cimumstanccs of the case,
” j;;v€;_ ‘are of ” :3}: opinion that compensation awarded cannot. be
tsmxfinatcé as excessive or as exorbitant. Theztfere, we see no
H to interfere with {I13 judgment of the Tztibtmal. Henctz, the
is iiahic to be clismissfzd.
&
8. Acccrdingiy, the appeal is dismissed.
d£:P ‘-
‘ Mfl\ * £§lL§Ti€ :m:}
RSf*