High Court Karnataka High Court

The Managing Director Bangalore … vs L Shantha on 30 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director Bangalore … vs L Shantha on 30 October, 2008
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
EN THE HIGH <:om2'r OF KARNATAKA AT  
Dated this the sow day of <:'1'<:::B1s:1:r ,%'2o'1$Ri§_E$INASE _

MIs<::.FIRs'r APPEA'iT,_vi~Es;:_.94Sv1/'Z0065  (§g:v',a  
Batwean:  '   

The Managng }DiI'mt,01', ' _ 
Bangaiem Metropolitan  A V
Transport C.<31'pr;ratior.~,~- V. .  V
{BMTC),    
Shaflthi Na.g.ar,5j"  . 3 
Bangaloré-568' G"2"--, ,     V.
(RC1 QW§1Cf'~!.}f'33'§1TC bus} *
reprefiented. 111$'   _
Chief1La.\v*Qi'f1cgba3i,M;x1jv.)

 W/0.1éa.§cAT'S. Raju,
"Aged about 42 years.

{'0

  Kumar R,
,_ "S/o Late 8. Raju, it
* Aged about 26 years.

 A ~73. SandhyaRar1i,

B/G Late S. Raju,
Aged abpit 22 umIs/



4. Mohazn, Kumar R.

S/«:; Late S. Raju,

Aged about 20 years.

A1} are resident af No.79,

Mariyappa Building,

Opposite N.N. Party Hali,-.__

Lasf. B113 Stop,  

Kcngeri Satellite town, Kcfiggérzi, _ E
Ba11ga1oz'e--560 050,  --  LRESPO'ND'EN'I'S

(sx1LA.Ti'K:m§arvc2;;TV %am;.;%%

 Act against the

.}udg:§1ent  H . _dat_t:d 18/3] 2006 passed in
M.V.C:'--N¢-«.488 the file er the x1;:>< Add}. Judge,
Court of 'S;i:1a11   Member, MACE', Mctmpolitan
Area} =Banga1<$:~e, ': (SCCH No.17), awarding a

   of fi§.4,41,000/- with interest at 6% 13.21.

  frglix petition till deposit.

  coming on for hearing this day, the

   §}Qur{, d:.eIivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is by BMTC Bangalore.
‘2. Brief facts of the case are:

natum and size. of vehicles invczsived in the

after perusing the sketch and other

it()()1.11d be said that the: coma-ibimiimj o m;e= vfcnif

the accident wouid not :mem4«’i=.h’é.=.*1 tfxj L»

extent the claimants are nfit»
from the appciiant.’ I
hold that bus accident at
95% and 5%. Now 1 have
to >tfs.;§&;f§L.:11:u13*;V;3f compcnsatiun awarded
by proper or is on the higher

isV1i’a7.r):1V«:=;V’to is rtduced.

‘ T. “_j:;1cce.ascd was carrying on busirxcss as

His wife: examined as P.W. 1 has

statédihat he was earning more than Rs. 15,000/—p.m.

Tribunal assessing his income at Rs.4,£)O0/-,

___{:or1sidcring his age as 47 and appiyirag the multiplier of

13 has awarded the compcxrmatien of 123.4, 16,000/–

towards loss of dependency. I find the same is just and

«J

?. Accordhlgly, the app-ml is partly
Judmcnt and Award of the ‘_’e’T %’;VrV;>:V’L_'<:<§5it$..

The axzaaunt in deposit th6~

Tribunal. A . V L

8. The is directed to
pay or depQsj.i;:’t’t;e with interest
Within of a certified

Sd/-é
Judgg

LI’