High Court Karnataka High Court

The Managing Director Ksrtc vs Biju @ Vijesh on 19 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director Ksrtc vs Biju @ Vijesh on 19 September, 2008
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
'  , "JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20/2/06 PASSED IN MVC
 NO§'§5?[O5 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, ADDLMACT,

   OF' SMALL CAUSES, MYSORE, AWARDING A
"  }COMPENSATION OF RS.1,89,506[- WITH SIMPLE
VV " " IN'I'ERES'I' AT THE RATE OF' 6% RA. FROM THE DATE OF

MFA.N0. 6270 . 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT 

DATED THIS THE 19'"! DAY OF SEPTEMBEF.',. 2£K)3

BEFORE %  . _ _
THE HOWBLE MRs.Jus'r1c.:EmB; v;:\§A<;A§4§.f§fi1;§§;§'~5  
M.F.A.N0.527IRE(:'z'oR-Ksz§#I'C '
CENTRAL OFFIGES, K-LH §~?()A.{_},_ 
BANGALORE 2*? BY 1Ts._(f%HIEF L_fi.W' _
OF'FiCERV ' . V '   .. 

    ...APPELLAN'I'
(By  1)A3.§.;LL AQV.) '

B:.JU.@-v1.13s;1 
5 ~ 3/0 NARAYANA
 Vamizn 21"f«'EiA$'
'R; A'r.No 111, am CROSS,
A   's*mG'3;.% RAJEEVA NAGAR,
- .V1mfsoRgV..
*    RESPONDENT

‘rm-3 MFA FILED U/S 173(1) or MV AC1’ AGAENST Ti-IE

PETi’I’i0H ‘E’iLL DATE OF REALIZATION.

This MFA coming on for FINAL HEARWG on this day,
the court delivered the following:-

ME”A.No.6270.2006

..2_.

lI

This appeal is filed by the KSRTC chailenging the
liability and quantum, being aggfieved by the and
Awani passed in M’VC.No.67’/ 2005 dated

2. The reievant facts of the case are onf_e’§.t’1

the respondent was nd1ng’ ‘ his AV

N3marah’ Cue’ Be at Mysore when

bearing wk and nesfimt
K against the respondent
He was immediately taken to
CSICo3:,1tending that he had suflemd

petenan. LA eiit bu” a result of the injuries sustained in

” V’ A iaéeciéient, hevfie ttttt claim’ pet;i11on’ seekm g compensafion on

Elefere the Tribunal the a.ppel1ant~KSR’I’C appeared

AA ; its statement of objections denying the avexww

V’ “mede in the claim petition and contending tmt the bus was

proceeding near Nimarah Mosque jtmcfion road and the

respondent] cyclist without oozatmlling his speed dashw
against the 1511 side of the bus, therefore, the accident

5
)-

1′-3.-V vluflqtc of aspects, I hold that there is no

For the aforesaid’ reasons, the appeal is

he transfcrmd to the Tribunal.

MFA. N0 . 6270 . 2006
.. 7 ._

1 I. it is however, the contenflion of the learned oouyscl for
the appeiiant that the Tribunal ought not to havsf
dmmmsemmmxznim mm wmm mm fiQ@fiwflfi£
percentage of permanent I§£{.3V!’:’ _

In the absence of any othcf’-1′ cczgiifii 6n 1me

permamnt disability sufiitred 133} fact
tha the multiplier appfiq§§…_py of
18 and also considering has
bcm awarded qn and onn the
head of and nourishment,
in my View
mmmmfmmmifikgmgfigfifiammwmnhummmmm

oompc}1sati§§x1..;§f’vRgV.’ in favour of the respondent

— ” statutory deposit before this court is

Sd/*
Iudge