.1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2533 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 20()8 "--.. BEFORE THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH Bfihz, T} ' BETWEEN: The Managing Director, Kanaataka State Road 'I'r~ansport C3orpo:ration, 1" Depot, Mysore, Rcpxusczgkzzl by L115 V' Chir:.fLaw cfiiccr. ~ - 1 K.S.R.T.C.. Central Oficc, _ . K. H. Road, Shanfhinngar, ~ Banga1orc--56002':_T; r A .. APPELLANT (By Sri. B. 1... "A;ae_:.3 -- V AND: 9,4 o. Late--1;aradi--Ma¢iy§¢s;;é; Aged about years. *****
‘V A ~13/u,I’>g;tabasavaiah,
_ rAged_ ‘years.
are ‘zesiding at
Sliamljshtlavenahalli,
VV Madabala Post,
Magaaévraiuk,
* Rural District. RESPOHDENTS
___{By 5;; S. V. Manjlmatha, Adv. for R2)
This Misc. First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of
M.V.Act against the judgment and awani dt. 18.0?.200?’ passed
in MVC l’¥0.34’78/ 2004 on this file of V1 Additional SC} 85 Member,
MAST, Bangalore, SOC}-I-2, awarding a compensation of
-2-
Rs.1,S0,000/– interest at 7% p.a. from the date of petition ti}!
deposit.
This Appeal coming on for Hearing this day, _4vttV1:e.._4’C9urt
delivemd the following: A
ilfii
This is an appeal by the Cgrgjomtiofi age” ; A’
liability as well as quantum.
2. Claimants am the t_hg=: st-atccViV
that, on. 3.7.2003 when t1:e 1’dgce;1s§§1’V’ the bridge
acmss Santhekhamf: river, in a rash and
negligent manner a result of which,
she fell dervsvfi ” V”::’g1 i¢§vo1is i11_iurics and later
Succumbiéd I
3. It Ai”.~:__s’1:a_1;eé was working in a garment
factory.,~T11e considczing the actual income of
ins aeééasea has ‘1umpsum of Rs.1,50.000/~, though it is
§i:=;téd dfiigeascd was Working in a garment factoxy and
was years.
AA as negligence is concerned, a charge sheet is filed
« driver of the bus and further, than: is no other
except oral evidence to prove the negligence. I am of the
Qpinion that, the finding of the Tribuzttal on the question of
negligence does not call for ‘mterference on the question of
negligence.
5. As far as quantum is concerned, only
‘granted without even considering the actual H tfliee
deceased. Hence, on both the geueds;:’£ee ewe:e_1 of
does notcall for interference. V4 1 . .’ n V’
Accordingly, the Appeal fails eegaeeeme is eieeegee; %
mm]-