R3 1% HIGH COURT OF KARRATAKA AT
mmozn um um am pm: or AIJ'G'US__'.'£'°9.:A."2'(Ai€;l8§5:
TI-IE Horrnm MR.JU8'I'ICE Ak T
mn%_ % A %
TI-IE Horraw
1 THE
K.H.12oADf 'SHA;§fi£'H1NAGAR'v'VVV--
& ;
REP.'-.§3Y TEH "F_1'.AW. OFFICER
. *
BANGALQRE X
. .. APPELLANT
mar : A swam' ADV )
....___..
sAN'rH0sH PAUL
~ $11 ISSAC
V.A('§E:D mom 52 YRS
% SM'r PRABHAVATHY
W/0 SANTHOSH PAUL
AGED ABOUT 49 YRS
BOTH ARE R/AT N0.'-am EAST ROAD
<_____C"'\a-fin.-,___'_,_
1»)
AUSTIN TOWN BANGALORE 47 RESPONDENTS
(By M/S LAWYERS CENTRE FOR C/R1&2 ) T
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT A<§A1;q%si§A§\AeL:eAe,iéiE* _
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DA'1'ED:O3 /04/zooee PASSED IN. *
MVC 190.5199/2004 ON THE FILE OEWTHE VI SCJ-IA AIJDL,
JUDGE, MEMBER MA<::'r,
BANGALORE, (SCCH- 2), AWARDING' COMPEN.SA7I'£O'i§"'~(§F._
Rs.4,2s,ooo/- WITH cosrs & 'AT 'rave 5-§.A,k F'_ROM_ *.
THE DATE OF mrmom TILL DEPOSIT. A A
THIS APPEAL COMING 0N,.-FOR £~A¥, ARALI
magma, J. DELIVERED 3;~\2s;*1:~re%;
The the correctness of
the impugned datefi 3.4.2006 passed by
the 2) (hexeinafter referred to as
M.V.C.No.5199/04.
heard the aI’glHIlC1″ltS of the learned
for both the parties and perused the
jtiiiment and award and also the entire material
‘ ‘ ‘ A oh ‘final reconis.
Smtsumangala Aswamy, learned counsel for the
strongly contended that the Tribunal
committed serious ermr in not acoepthlg the of
KW. 1, the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing No.I ‘ 0f thré
of P.W.2-Dayanand who wag. pilliéixj cycle
which was driven by the deg ‘% 33:69″ other material
on record has the driver of
the said bus’ by driving the same in
rash and .
4. documents Ex.P}., complaint
Uniésli—-who wimcssed the accident. Ex.P4
iI1qu__c:s$,_ I”P;I}G!jf;,». scene of offence pans ££.__x.P8
‘ rm anti’: $33910 copy of the charge sheet, it could be
— that nfifise decuments clearly establish that the said bus
in the said accident and the same was driwen by
h in a rash and negligent manner. Ex.P10, copy of
charge sheet further reveals that the ixlformant Umcsh,
3/0 of Deva1″aju, resident of Byrapatna village, Clmnngpauia
taluk, who lodged the complaint Ex.P1 stating mazeaieeisaga
ae<::ide:r1t was caused by the KS1-"€'I'C bus which
the place of mad' em after hittingV.e'dIe–. the E
P.W.2 Dayanand has been s11ee§€§vifiii5S's'V:IVio.2;" V
His evidence also clearly' Wfifle'~kfie1self and
the ciweased were moving the driver at' the
said bus, by it maxmer,
clashed eyes the said accident.
5. uimm was falsely lodged and the
charge s1_1_eetV “w%as submitted by the gmlice
ériver, the appeliant-Corporation could
we getting the FIR/charge sheet quashed.
on record to show that any steps were
_ by the appeHant~Corpora£ion in that regard. Therefore,
find any reasons to ilaterfezre with the findings’
e by the ‘i’:ribunal as to the occurrence of me said
*–._ ‘aecident on the said date, time and place as a result ofmim
r’-“””‘~”‘
rash and negligent driving of the bus belongng
appeflam:-Corporat:Lon by its driver. Since the
not filed any appeal or cross»-objection file.’
correctness of the finding as.
compensation awarded by the; ~ the at ,
undisturbed.” V V V
5. For the _ appeal
deserves to be dismiS9’°dA&….a:%9. any merit.
Accordingly, judgment and
award of amount deposited
before in L fifaxasmitted to the Tribunal
concerned to withdraw” the same. No
” ….. .. V
Sd/-3
Judge
Judge
