'Now, iéI'1"1'C2L;
M F A NO.-¢359f2995
I .
IN 'THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BAN§A£(§RS'~»
DATED THIS 'THE 25% DAY 01? MAY f 'j M?" A'
BEFORE; « J H '
'rm Horrnm DR. JU8'l'I¢E :1' _
MISCELLANEOUS FIRS'5':lf:vK1EfPE1--}'§L % AV
BETWEEN: »
1. The Chainnan, A _ ;
Kamataka Eiectri-city Board, V '
Now KPTCL,
Cauvery .1
K G Road; __ . "
Bangalore-5.60
2. The Assist£Vi11tExc;fu. ti§ic
Karnatafa' Electxicity Boaxfi,
;_Ku11_igai sub;n:v«ig:en, H %%%%% "
Tuznlqur' Eiisixtigit. - V x Appellants
(By Sj:"Z__VI3 Rmdfigifwda, Adv., for petitioner)
. A jv ' AND:
Vx '-1:' -- Devccramma,
/ 6- Late Krishnappa,
. '--.Auge:__38 years.
Bf o fate Krishaappa,
Age: 20 years.
M F A No.4359f2(}fi5
3. Hanumegowda,
S/0 Iatc Krishnappa,
Age: 18 years.
4. K Anitha, .
D/0 late Krishnappa,
Age: 16 years.
5. A R Rangaswamy,
Advocate,
S] 0 Rangappa,
R/0 K R S Agrahaxa,
Kunigal,
Tumkur District,
And aiso residing at No. 189,
5&1 Cross, 1" 'N' Block, A '
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore-560 010.
6. The Na'iiona}.ii1Si:1z-yliec Co':-.Ltd..,_'
Branch Ofiqe," _ V "
Vivekananda Road, _ '
Tumkur-S72 10.1. - -_ Respondents
R;-1 wall msiciinga:
AV KF2 i*';g1'a"h..fia' rd, ¢K1m1ga1' Town,
RA--4 i:3_-a mina'r"a1:dVVmpmscntcd by
Natur8l.Guax~§i~an:-mother/ R 1
(By Sri_A M .Vc_i1;1:atcsh, Adv. for R-6)
{By Szi J R, Adv., for R-1 to 4)
" Misccflaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 113(1) of
fitge Mdtbr Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award dated
--.1 6.2.?2005 passed in MVC 530.3609/1997 on the file of the Member,
»MA'C3T'-V, Add}. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalom (SCCH~5)
..,_a}Wa1vding compensation of Rs.2,93,000/- with interest at 8% p.a.,
iimta the date of Petition ie., 24.12.11.997 till 1.4.2003 and thereafter
at 6% p.a till the date of deposit and direcfzing the appellants herein
to pay 40°/£2 of the comwnsation amcunt.
M F A No.-4359!2D(}5
This Appeal coming on for Grders this day, the Court delivered
the following: ,
JUDGMENT
The appcilants are before féfii
the impugnea judgment and awam jc§atea 1T%5;2,;5ed5 zagm tr-.c*?
No.3609/ 1997 on the file of pf' at Bangaiore City, fixing 40% on the appcllants. J . 3 A Z M H
2jv1vNot_~éc:é:A’ No.5 is dispensed with.
3. v}.&aV£nc<A:i._ for the appeliant and resmndcnt
. _Nos. 1 31;) axgd 6' disposal.
‘5Vf§f:£~~faCiiS of the case leading to the filing of the Appeal
st%::@1..–as under:
.. Rcspbndent 1903.1 to 4 filed a claixn petition under the
_ Mot-er Vehicles Act sacking grant af compensation of
VA R3;%4,00,{)00/~ towards death of one Kishnappa, who died in thc
~ motor aocidant that occ on 16.7.1996 at about 2.00 13.1111.
M F A No,4359/2005
Respondent Nos.1 to 4 am wife and children of the . deceased»
Krishnappa. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein are 0’§3i?’I1t’_43iiV@41_:(>l~.,_iI1S1]1’CI’
of the Car bearing No.CRL-6670. It is the case of ce1Lfios.1
to 4 that on 16.7.1996 when the deceased~i{1’ishr:e.;;”§§2V
front of the house of Nageshwaraiah, the em.ti§G3%’e?es hf
herein were drawing electric line r across ” the the
.Marufi. Van beefing No.CRL-6675?’ *s::”rash’:’;3nd negligent
manner and as electric was gt of the vehicle
struck and as a result of pulled and it fell
on the he’; sustained fatal injuries and
died.
5… of the Car were made parties to the
V. appellants/Boaxd pleaded that they are not liable
to neither under Motor Vehicles Act nor any
V ether age, as ttzeaccident oocuned due to rash and negligent drm’ Eng _
§3ar”b_§,r its driver. The parhb 5 went to trial. The Tribamal
as many as three issues. In support of the case of the
the wife of the deceased~Kn’shnappa was exazmh ed as
” “Few-1 and got marked Exs.P~1 to P45. in support of the case of the
” Insurance Company, its oficiai—Sri C Gopalappa was examined. as
x_/
M F A No.4359f20G5
5
R.W*1. On behalf of the appeliants viz.Kamataka
one Kenchaiah was examined as R.W-2.
6. The Tribunal, on appxeciationvof”ev.idex:ee Qii” ‘.v’V.:’v!.”‘:f'{.’-%l’.}VV1lT'(3.;}C§;’-}7’l(‘2 in
a conclusion that the accident J
driving of the Car by its ciriver as’§vefl..as of the
Karnatraka Electricity chetiiatitmwt-rézxy negligence
at 60% on the driver of the Karnataka Electricity
Board and ordered 591’ Rs.2,93,0()O/- with
interest at:’t11eTVra§e T.9f date of Petiflon.
7. Learxguedé ‘ffllc appellants submits that the tria}
get pmpeflya§.1p’reeiated the evidence adduced on behalf of
‘fine’ contended that the work was in pmgmss
and deputed to keep watch on the and not to
.=a11ow” ‘V in spite of that, the driver of mé Car came in a rash
V hegljgeet manner and as a result of which the electric cable got
K the wheel of the Car and as a nasal’: of which the electric
T “;§§3Ie”Tfel1 down and the pedest1’ian–Kr.ishnappa sustained injuries.
4′”<. 'I;herefo:e, it is submitted that the appellants are not liable to pay
compensaticn.
\\/
M F A NG.4359!20G5
8. Learned Counsels appcatfing fa;-~. ,
complainants and insurance fin 4.:
of the evidence placed on a conclusion that there was a the part of the
driver of the Car as weH’s;e”‘the rightly fixed the
coxltrrihutoxy negligence at airxd there is no illegality
I or infirmity. Et;is’£’gi’éhe::*._ insurer of the Car has
pa1d’ the thy the Tribunal, but the
appellanté Iiavetihot
9. 7,It iaenfion that there is no cogent and
sattisfactory” e.eVideVfic~._e’2 on record to establish that the
_ Eleetzicity Boani had taken necessary caution
There is no material on record to S-h{)’W that the
execnnd g the electric work when the work was in
V Vt _ progess. Gutter such circumstancee, the Txibunal was jushfiezr.i’ in
H H ” cotitfibutozy negligence at 40% on the pan of the appellants»
Electxicity Board. I see no good gonad to clltertain the
cf wfizztpealé .
\A/
M F A No.4359i20{}5
7
10. In the msuit, the Appeal fails and thehcreby
dismissed.
The statutory amount deposited the
be transmitted to the Tribunal for dist:2%rrA1_t5-lnut7._ hi ‘ ‘
The appellants are din;-cted ” the WV
compensation amount, if outstantiiéig,» i11<$&3{iis'fibm
No costs. ____ H
%A'T3js :