High Court Karnataka High Court

The Managing Director vs Shri Dattu Panduranga Kamble on 18 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Shri Dattu Panduranga Kamble on 18 November, 2008
Author: N.Kumar
IN THE men mum' 0:? KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT Di-{ARWAD
DATED 31115 THE 18TH DAY OF' N0vEMBEg.I:'_:é'003A:---.ji f  _

BEFORE

THE H€)N'BLE MR. JUsT£CE N.';€vU'rvIA R  4'   
WRIT PETITION N0.57-3s/2Go$'(GM--A»;};:';};   "
BETWEEN:      

THE MANACJNG DIRECT{)R~,..A_ _  ,
NORTH WEST KARNATAKA'-ROAD.  V '
TRANSPORT CORPN. THROUGH ' V _
DIVISEQNAL CONTF2_OLLER~-  _  V   " "

BELGNJM, 'V    _ ' 3;.PET§'§'1Q§'*fER

(BY SR1 PRAFULLA  ?RAE%»HA MURTHY, ADVS, }

ANS:

SHRI m1*i*eI_PANDUR;%x:$:a_:: '::%:;s~,,é;siéLE,
M33 25 YEARS. C3C,C:" {i(;sOLI~--E),
R/Q BIJ'z§GARi'£1;~TALUK AND

 -  _I:>zsf_';&:e:*:f1_'_LgE%LGAU3s.~z,... ..... .. - Ii RESPQNDENT

' =  "vTHv:S%:§r':£e:T'-PETITEON ES FRED UNBER AR'§'£(1LE8 226 am

1§'2T"" _O§'  {3<§"§'§'S'FZ"{'U'I'iON GE' ENDIA FREXYENG T0 CALL FQR

RECOARBS fN j_M:VC 2651503 ON THE FELE 0? THE CGURT GP'
£x%EA(;'7i_'~I, Vf3€LVCs1'3sUi'e'§ ANE) IN THE CQUET OF THE PRL. BiS'I'§?EC'E'

 «EUDCEE BELGAUM. SE'? ASZIDE THE JUDGMENT' AND AWARD
" --«   "§}A'f'ED  1{},'2007 '§fi}Z}E ANNEXUEE v-«A AND B IE8 EXCESSEVE
'  Lg.é;R'BE"§'RAE?? AND UNSUS'I"AiN&E§,E AND EJTQ.

   '*m;s wan' PE"'I'§'E"iG?~¥ comma ON 2*e'GR PRELEMENARY
  V' HEEEARENG TEES my', THE COURT MADE: 'ma FQLLQWENG:



2
ORDER

The pef.itioner~North West Karnataka Road T’raJ;’.:;p0I”{
Clorporation has chailengeii in this writ
compensatiozx awaxfied by the Tribunal at
damagés to the respondent on the gmur:-;:1, K
on {ha part of the driver of the fiszgt .’
secondly on the ground that»Q§é….f30nfi5e:%§sat§Oii_’A 11$ * V

excessive and arbifimy. __

2. The: z=.ccic’£c1;t”‘is» thse accident,

the 1t:s;”§ond:fi§Tiz1″‘tT?+;us;tV§¥2i3.”1::Vun.a} awaxfied a sum {if Rs.2,50{3/~=~

.foij _if;e:* Rs.1§9GO/- fer mfidical ‘tmatmeni and

Rs;.’.’3_,i(‘}Q0 gain am} sufiefing. The contention that

. ‘Vghe claimant has 110$ yrmscci that the: respofident W33

A ” i;3g:ii§gen£ in ériving the vehiszzie is Without any merit. Tiitmxgh

clfgim petificn is flied under Sectiozii 166 of ma Mater

‘ Vehicles Act, undar Section 153A of the Act, it is not

obfigamry on the part of the Claimaxzt to prove: negligence at

311. 13 that View 0f the matter when acczidcat is not disgzuted

ané the respondezxt has sustaixmd simple injuzcies in the saici

accident, the Tribunal committed my illegaiity in proceeding

to awaré the compénsaiicn on the ground {hat ha.-has

established the cnlpabic zlegligence ozathe part of ._<

of the KSRTC.

3. Insofar as the awarding’ of TcE)mpr::ri::;ét£cnI”[

concerned, the ztzspondent waf§ ag¢d “Z23 ..s*:é$
Working as 3 Coolie ens the . <_3£ and
admittediy he sustainé:€iT.V:%" a global
campensation cf Rs.6,5{}fl} ~.5;1iCh i11j1H'iBS
cannot be side. it is
unfortunéfis ef comfiying with ihis

awards f i.:~::_i9s7as;ti@ pubiic mane}? arnd its

_ 133396 VE?€1§v 2$ Vth6′:pI’CCi01lS tim of thc Court by

befszt this Court

4; v«._’Aci:fi’a’rd’ iz2g13r,the petifivzm is armmimd.

sal-

Iudga

“1