IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 16" DAY 0? DECEMBER 2008':
BEFORE
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE sUBHA$n_S[apI"
M.F.A. No. 13144 of 206% {Evy -f"
BETWEEN
.--..u..~..-a.._--.---
1T THE CHAIRMAN AND ,m_V
THE MANAGING DIRECTGR _ ._, ,
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRRNSEORTm
CORPORATION CENTRAL oFF:c3s*C;.¥
K.H.RQAD 5ANGAL0Rg 27",}, I ,'
REP. BY ITS cars? LAW"Qf?ICER
.=. i 1 -' ?; c F . ... APPELLANT
(By 39::"§*s,DgéAL:;§gDvQc$mE 3
---.m----«.-....------.
= "-1.7§HA:K"ABDuL fiEHAMAN
V ~S/D'3HAiK_BAHADUR
'j,AGgb,ABQu$ 24 YRS
A'R/AT--N0;3 0 P H ROAD
-J5'.-CRQSS, SULTAN NAGAR
14?H CROSS BANGALORE 51
.N* .. RESPONDENT
vx° iRES§ONDENT No.1 IS saavao )
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) 0? MV ACT
“‘-._ *,AGAINsT THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
21 . 3 . 2007 PASSED IN MVC NO. 27 0/ 2004 ON THE
FI LE’. OF’ THE XIX ADDL . JUDGES, COURT OF’ WALL
CAUSES , MEMBER , MACT ,. METROPOLITIAN ,
BANGALORE, (SCCH .NO. 1′? ) ,
COMPENSATION OF’ RS .
ANARD1NG.w,”,Ae
43,000/– WITH INTEREST @ ”
6% P.A FROM THE DATE 09 PETITION TILL pE9QSIT4f» –
J U D G.MTE Nlf_’
This appeal is filed :’by1 :t~1’ie
State Road Transport C’e_x;’;*;:;rati’on
the negligence and__ quantTii11._ “of e0mp_en§~f§ati0n
awarded by the MAcT}~Banga1o£é;pin_Mvc No.27O
of 2004 dated_2lf03;2UG§;V7Qz .
2) ~35 gggw alleged “thaf on 02.05.2003,
claimarit ” ‘fwo Wheeler–Honda
Activa bea«;;V5.a1g ~IfJc$~, “«2§§X.O3.EG.6677 as a rider
or’§é’«v!?1.o1’:arnmed Nadeem as a pillion
the vehicle reached Kasturba
Read}neafifiéahesha Temple, a KSRTC Bus bearimg
$¢_4TRegietxe§ion No. KA. KA.O7.F.518 being driven
‘Tits driver in rash and negligent manner
‘”‘-.___”‘7sut;{denly came to left side of the read without
*.g”1ving any signal and stopped, as a result,
Active Honda dashed to the bus from behind, as
a result, the claimant and the pillion rifle;
sustained grievous injuries.
3) On evaluation of the -evioehoeg lthex
Tribunal found that the negligehee was on par§¢L
of the bus driver and hot on the part of the
rider of the two wh?e16§ afig élfio round that
as per the Wound Certifiioate} the Clfiimant ha5
suffered fraoturelWi€fl_f;i§htll leg and
accordingly;lraearqéda?kotaiihoohpensation of
Rs.§3;@Q0f–ril
4) Sri; Dabali; learned counsel appearing
._ for. the” Coreoration submitted that, in the
AVoc1ain;_oetition, the claimant has stated he
shstaiheéffraeture in his right hand, whereas
rthe Wouhd Certificate shows that he suffered
lh:fracture in his right leg. He further
.}shhfiitted that, the claimants themselves went
4
and hit the bus, as such, there is no
negligence on the part of the bus driver.
5} The charge sheet and the _peii§eflH
records show that the driver of ‘theh:5uSrr’i
suddenly took left turn and Hit the hrhceeee H
the two wheeler went and daehe@tagainet;f$ei”
bus. In such circumetancesgx’theeiTrihuha1
found that the negligence’ the
fiart of the driver or thej$us,_ ii that is so:
it does not reeuire idO%p§rQQf to prove the
rash ahd’ne§iigent’driying of the bus by the
driver. The.recor§e also Show that the driver
of tee’ Joust’ taken bus to the left side
t,Veithout?: eiving signal, then it is the
negliqefiée on the part of the bus driver.
6}rrfiaving regard to the contention of
“«i~Mrebebali in regard to interchange in
i*.ihmehtioning type of fracture, I am of the
heopinion that, though in the claim petition it
F _¢x
is stated that the claimant suffered fractfire
in his right hand, the wound certifieeteh,
clearly indicates that the cla;@&httffiafi,f_»*
suffered fracture in the right leg and it $éy_h
be a “typographical error ahé. that _iehhnét’}e=V
vital error. Therefore, there 1sago«:easo5 to
interfere with the eompeneetienhawardeé by the
Tribunal.
?) Thgihefiheaihtfigitflghehdfi accordingly
di3mis5¢§f{, It ‘” Rhhhk ‘ x’
The afiefiht, if ehy,– in deposit shall be
tran.sfeJ: recL% te . Sd/_
Judge