The Managing Director vs Smt Anuradha W/O R Ramesh on 22 August, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KAR'NA'I'AKA AT BAN(}ALr)RE

DATED THIS THE 22:41) DAY OF AUG13S*1'   

BEF()RE;.... 

THE HOWBLE MR. msncs  _

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APIEAI, No. 1 5324%0Fgoo¢i% (Mv) %
BETWEEN: A'   & 
ThcMa;1aging Director " $ -. V     
K. S. R. T. C, Cgfitfal  " 

Kcngai  "  V.
Bang:3}0re¥:361}ivi{}27':'-3'"  _   APPELLANT
(By   

%   % g;;:t'gt. Angrdazm, Mr A
* ' Wis .R; vR£x:§1e3h ~-.
 Si'ddamafii.VVPa!jfa*"'

Kméxpanahiiiii Post
Uii7'i'1.'-':'.1H!!$$

This Misccilancuus First Appeal! és flied under Se4:{.§un
113(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgement and
award ciaicd 3.82007 passed in MVCA No. 16732006 011 the File of

the Member, Additienai Momr Accidents Claims Tribunal and

3



3
3. The Ccaunset weuld submit that there was m3___evidence

pieced on record to e.~;tabtish that the income t.>t."':

eiaimant was Rs.30{)0;'- per mentb and Further  iitittee? 

has also net addressed the u)ntfibt:§{i)fj; 'fleg}ig_gen.eeA fii3. _§he'f1aft. ui' Vt

the }T'6Sp0t"id6!'.!t, when she _ was v4'eherge-sheeteé'  ttaeittg
eernmitted the accident- It is  gi?t;211"'t"d:eV':thtit§ the present
appeal is suught to be urged. 

4.  nc.3itt>i§et income adopted is nursing}.
Heneeflt ientxi  gxmen:.i_LVt'e1{tehallenge. Secondly, the accusation
1.31' euntri§$u.£t§:"y  emly the basis that the First

Inl1>;§fiati.0n Repsgft wits iudged against the respondent camzet

reefiif being euntribulery negligeece an the part at’ the

r:e;$.}x5;’:£ie:1’t.” V’ having regard tn the n(;r:zi:1a.3 awant in

;:f'{<;)'estVe£' future earning capacity having been granted at

Rs.9I,.8t)€;}§-V, there is no intirmity in the judgement, and award.

x V' ~ Aeeerdiegiy, the appeal is rejected.

6

The amount in deposit be rmnilimi in

bcr1cfi.ic3i’£ht: claimant resgxarzdenl. «

SR