IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN
DATED THIS "me 30TH DAY 01'-* NovEMse1:;'«l2--a
BEFORE' b
"me HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE:'B.SREjEN'IlfA:SE'VGGWDA
Miscellaneous First Apfieal. L'
Miscellaneous First of 2008 [MV)
In MFA 1014:8103 " A H
BE'rwEr;_1g ' as "
The Managing I3f§.1'eC'tQf;-
Bangalore NletrppolitahTransport
Corporafiorx, K; . H, Read," Shanthinagar,
Bangalore »-- 56-0 02?. é
. Appellant
l s. Justice,
' _ 'A S'rf1_.' R. Diwakar, Advs.)
1. "Ayesha,
W/ 0. Shri. Riyaz Ahmed,
Age : 40 years.
. Shri. Iyaz Sharief,
S/o. Late Shri. Riyaz Ahmed,
Age : 20 years.
3. Shri. Umaraz Kouser,
D/0. Late. Shri. Riyaz Ahmed,
Age: 18 years.
All are residing at:
No.78, Old Pension Mohalla,
Mysore Road,
Bangalore --- 560 018. __ . V
,
{By Sri. A. Sreenivasaiah,=__AdV, forte/r} V
This MFA is filed U /S-.173[i').,_of MV Aéeaggixitstdtizgii >
Judgment and award date'd..,gC}4,.O7.2OO8V.passed in MVC
No.4759/2006 on the file of.,vJu_dge,"Member, MACT,
Bangalore, SCCH--9,..,_ awarding compensation of
Rs.5,-40,788/-- with i~nt"ere'st 1 from the date of
Petition till deposit. V
In MFA 103 13108 .
BETWEE1: " *
1. Smt.A},resIV3}a, _ _'
/ 0. Shiif
Age : 42 yea1fs._ " "
2. " Shri. £yaz"Sha'rief,
ES'/'o__. Late Siriri; Riyaz Ahmed,
"Age i'a22 years.
. "3h~ri. Uriiaraz Kouser,
Diiate. Shri. Riyaz Ahmed,
20 years.
All are residing at:
No.78, Old Pension Mohaila,
Mysore Road,
Bangalore -- 560 018.
Appellants
[By A. Sreenivasaiah, Adv.)
AND
1. K. S. Bhaskar,
S/o. G. S. Swamy.
Aged about 34 years,
Niluvagilu Grama,
Hunsoor Post and Ta1uk,::
Mysore District.
2. The Managing on~ee¥.er.... _ V _
Bangalore Metropolitan.'Transport'"i *
Corporation, K. H. Road,"gvShanthin'agar,..'
Bangalore -- 560027. V ~ V
Respondents
(By 1 §Se_rved., iinrepreserited
Sri_&--E';' D'iwaka__r',' Justice, Advs for R2)
Thisi"'MFA.iiis filed l7'3{"1) of MV Act against the
JudgrnentVand..award"dated 04.07.2008 passed in MVC
No.4759/2o06« file of Judge, csc, Member,
MACT,"'--.Banga1ore. »-SCCH--9, partly allowing the claim
petition foifcoirhipensation and seeking enhancement of
cs{rnpensatio'n..' V
appeals are coming on for Hearing, this
Cjo.1_1jrt. delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
As these appeals are arising out of a common
” judgment and award of the Tribunal, they are heard
together and disposed of by this common judgment.
5%,
2. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to
as they are referred to in the claim petition beforethe
Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case ashdpieadeid
petition are:
That on 19~01~06. ‘When th’e._V_ ‘was it
proceeding on K.R. overxonv the ieft
side of the road and ramp of fly
over, a ‘pcarne negligent manner
from As a result, the
deceased’_’sdnstaj:ned* and died in Mallya
Hospitflpjon Wife and two major children
a cliaimupetition before the MACT, Bangalore,
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal
judgment and award has awarded
cornplensatlon of Rs.5/£0,788/~ with interest at 6% p.a.
it ” and Tafter deducting 20% towards contributory
7:z’ie’g1igence on the part of the deceased, directed the
BMTC to pay 80% of the Compensation.
9%.
4. Aggrieved by the judgment and award, BMTC has
preferred MFA No.101éi8/O8 challenging the award
both on the ground of negligence as well as quantum.
Claimants have also preferred MFA No.
challenging the award both on the ground__A'<i;.fH
as well as quantum.
5. Learned Counsel appe’a1iIi_g’~’; for
submits, deceased was ‘supposed” to croVssV._;’iv’lysore 4%
Bangalore road at Kalasipalyafn. market”by…using under
pass meant for pedestriarisjiVjirlel submits, the
fact that he’jwalsf:,;suffering from”‘liver cirrhosis shows, he
was lunldéer’ the,” of alcohol at the time of
accident and he ‘dashed against the BMTC bus and
no negligence on the part of the driver of BMTC
‘Tribunal is not right in holding that the
C bus has contributed for the accident
at 80023:.
n6.*- Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the
Atcilaimants submits, no doubt it is true there is under
l pass and deceased could have used it to cross the road,
but it does not mean that driver of the BMTC bus could
drive the bus in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the deceased. if the driver ofgthhetgbus
had driven the same with a little care, hej”coul~d._: h_;_1ve
avoided the accident.
7. Deceased sustained inju’r.ites_in a_-.r”oarl if
accident occurred on 19–1¥'{l€T3:, He died as
evident from the death_ certificateVVLEx.P.6.”””I’he body of
the deceased was not rnortem and
cause of deat’h1is’notkno-vvn’;vvh:etheréit is on account of
ir1juries’=sustained “de-ceased in a road traffic
accident’ pron’ of__the fact that he was suffering
from liVe1″‘«cirrhosisf.~., ‘
the folair:.1a,r1ts who are the wife and children of
» Vitheg deceas:e’d___should not be made to suffer and lose
this Court directed the learned Counsel
for to use his good office and find out from his
‘A whether they could pay 50% of the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal. At the same time, learned
Counsel for the claimants was asked to find out
whether the claimants agree to take 50% of the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
9. On instruction from the respective clients-{learned
Counsel for the BMTC submits, his client to.
pay 50% of the compensation :awa_i”de1d’4″b§,_t ~thed’l”r:ib__ui?.al,
as per the letter addresse’d__to
learned Counsel apVpearing_._for__the elaimantsi submits,
claimants have agreedto -the compensation
awarded hythelTr1htiha1§.ij:
10. The..V.<leaVi':ned appearing for the parties
have fil_ed erzellosing a copy of the letter
datec1"1_9"–1_1;io the BMTC in favour of their
Cdunsel andthey are taken on record.
the appeals are disposed of. The
"are entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.2,l'r3,315/– as against Rs.4,32,630/– which forms
of Rs.5,40,788/~ awarded by the Tribunal. Out of
the amount deposited in nationalised Bank pursuant to
the order of this Court, a sum of Rs.2,16,3l5/– with
.
interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till
the date of realisation is ordered to be released in
favour of the claimants. The remaining amonnt is
ordered to be released in favour of
Bangalore.
12. Out of the amount ordered’ to_-“‘be”:releas’ed
favour of the claimants, 50% with
is ordered to be inVested’in_”F…_D. in a1iyVriat’i~:§’rl’aliZed or V
scheduled Bank in the -t1?1″e_first ‘Claimant who is
the wife of the v’*1.ie1’iod of 9 years
renewable oncein ‘aright of option to
withdraw ,inte”restl_ the remaining
amount w1’th_’probortionatedVinterest is ordered to be
rele_ae’e–d favour of”aii° the claimants in equal
propor’ti__0r.i.a_ a. l ~
No order as’ tolcosts.
Sd/-