{"id":102182,"date":"2009-12-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/imthiaz-so-mohamad-peer-vs-the-managing-director-bmtc-depot-on-1-december-2009"},"modified":"2014-12-02T21:13:16","modified_gmt":"2014-12-02T15:43:16","slug":"imthiaz-so-mohamad-peer-vs-the-managing-director-bmtc-depot-on-1-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/imthiaz-so-mohamad-peer-vs-the-managing-director-bmtc-depot-on-1-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Imthiaz S\/O Mohamad Peer vs The Managing Director Bmtc Depot on 1 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Imthiaz S\/O Mohamad Peer vs The Managing Director Bmtc Depot on 1 December, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: N.K.Patil And Gowda<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTIC'E-._B.SREEN1\"VAS1\u00a75  V\n\nDATED THIS THE 151 DAY OF DECEMBEZR. 20Q9t _' \n\nI PRESENT:\n\nTHE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE 'V '  F.\n\nM.F.A.No. 669 origgoa   \n\nBETWEEN:\n\nImthiaz,    _  '\n\nS\/o.M0h,a:'nad. Pe\u00a7:r, 1, \n\nAged 4%;-.yea;'rs,__.\n\nNo.48, 8?'.\"*--Ci*<)'::;s__a,b   V"\n\nN . R. Gard'erig_\nChdluzf }?-alyajig " --\n\n13an;;a.1o'r\u00a2~_.,5\u00e9so e_1 '1~ \nPf\u00e9 s_e m.1y 'r\u20ac_sVid.'1 1~1  h " ' .\nAmbwj. 1'ami_l Nadug'\n\nV" I V  (It3y"'S1*iii.NufP.1fa\\reen"Kun1ar, Advocrate)\n\nThe _Managing Director,\n\n" .. BMTC Depot,\n\n Bangaiore -\u00bb 580 027.\n\n[By S1*\u00a7.M.H.Moi.igi. Adv0caI,e}\n\nCchtral Office.\nKH Road.\n\n Appellant.\n\n... Respondent<\/pre>\n
-J
\n\u00bb<\/p>\n
This MFA is filed U\/S 173(1) of MV ACE againsi the
\njudgment. and award dated 20.07.2005 passed in,-._M\\\/C
\nNo.2172\/2000 on the file of the learned Vi Add}. SCJ. 8:
\nMember, EVIACT. Court of Smaii Causes, BangaioreW(S_CCHu–<\/p>\n
2), pariiy aiiowing the Claim petition for con1pen”s’a\u00ab!,.iOI1_0′ aJ_._1_d~.,<\/p>\n
seeking enhancement of eomperisaiion.<\/p>\n
This M.F.A. coming on fo1’v.<'r"i'e~.r:..ri&I1g'_4'K7<\/p>\n
PATIL J, delivered the Iollowing:
\nME  V 3 W
\nThis appeal is   iijiudgment
\nand award dated "in MVC
\nNo.2172\/200O'A'o\u00a7vr tha7sV1ea.1\u00a7aei:i.Aj#\u00a711%iaaaivsgjiadge, Court of
\nSmall   ijgganigaiore, (hereinafter
\nrefe rred r.i:o_ 0'   7
\n  judgment and award, the<\/p>\n
TribunalVV\u00b0h4as.,  sum of Rs.2.88,000\/w under<\/p>\n
   h"eads';'w__'1__t__hvinterest at 7% 13.21.. from 25.7.2003<\/p>\n
 ' *;.i_}.l  as against the claim made by the<\/p>\n
apfjellaiaeviaifoiri' a sum of Rs.8.00.000\/v. Being aggrieved<\/p>\n
 by  said judgment and award, appeliant has<\/p>\n
 present.ed this appeal. seeking enhancement on the<\/p>\n
 groiind that. the amount awarded by the Tribunal is<\/p>\n
inadequate.\n<\/p>\n
\/\/\u00bb\/’<\/p>\n
3. In brief the facts of the case are:<\/p>\n
The appellant is claiming that he is aged <\/p>\n
years at the time of accident, working as <\/p>\n
earning Rs.3.000\/- per niont.h.__TVh_at o.ii”’2\u00a3ll.’4\u00ab,.2t)0Q ‘* <\/p>\n
about 3.25 p.m., appellantfg 2  ‘ash<\/p>\n
pedestrian on KR. Road’lfl’rvomx <\/p>\n
Nagar from North.” to   “w-h.en_i\u00a7 he was
\nproceeding infront   Temple. at
\nthat time, a C came
\nfrom the   its in a rash and
\nnegligenlt’  against him, due to
\nwhich:-.hle\u00abl.  injuries. Immediately, he<\/p>\n
has?.beenll’admitted_ ilristhe hospital for more than five<\/p>\n
 rnonths and he has spent some reasonable amount. for<\/p>\n
   On account. of the injuries sustained by<\/p>\n
the app’ellant in the said accident. he has filed a claim<\/p>\n
 .p;etitio.n; before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of<\/p>\n
l “~V_lRs-3.00.000\/~. The said claim petition had come up for<\/p>\n
=’:considerat,ion before the Tribunal, which in turn, after<\/p>\n
hearing both sides and after assessing the oral and<\/p>\n
L<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
documentary evidence, has allowed the said claim<\/p>\n
petition in part and awarded a sum Rs.2.88,OQ(l3.[~e._Vas<\/p>\n
eornpensation under different heads with <\/p>\n
p.a., from 25.7.2003 till its deposit. “~ <\/p>\n
by the said judgment and awrard:,’_”thel’ap’pe’llan:t~._has<\/p>\n
presented this appeal,  Venha.n(‘:e’m.eVrit3 of,”<\/p>\n
compensation.\n<\/p>\n
4. We have  appearing for
\nthe ap pellan 1;. i  and     it it appearing for<\/p>\n
 f’or””th-ellappellant. at the outset
\nsubmitted’.  awarded by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal llun_derV’v–.al1=_ the heads is inadequate and it<\/p>\n
 re\u00ab:}ui1it.es to be mlo”cii’fiVed.<\/p>\n
 ;5{sl.:v”against this, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
re–s__pondenft\u00e9Corporation su brnitted that, the Tribunal on<\/p>\n
 _p1foper.:’consideration of the oral and doeurnentary<\/p>\n
lfevidence on file. has awarded just and reasonable<\/p>\n
-Veomper1sat.ion under all the heads and therefore, it does<\/p>\n
not call for int;erferenee<\/p>\n
\/*”'”J”\n<\/p>\n
5\/”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7. After careful consideration of the submissions
\nmade by tearned counsel appearing for both the parties
\nand after Careful perusal of the judgment and ayvard
\npassed by the Tribunai, the oniy point that <\/p>\n
our consideration is:\n<\/p>\n
Whether the compensation
\nthe Tribunal is just and reasonable? 1 ‘ W <\/p>\n
8. After careful perusal  the A.1″n”ateria’I  recjord. <\/p>\n
it emerges that, in the  thfat\ufb01oiecurred on
\n23.4.2000 at about   has sustained<\/p>\n
fracttirewoi   of’._’Ie’ftKIeg, fracture of base of
\n5″‘ metaear–paI,~ ieft ankie ealeaneus and deep<\/p>\n
1aCeI’_ated ‘vifou:nd…ove’r dorsum of left foot and medical<\/p>\n
. 0. ”’sma1i\u00e9ioi;s ofpthe lfeftfffoot, undergone amputation of left<\/p>\n
“ttVhe.Vi_knee an~d he has taken treatment as<\/p>\n
inpa,_tien'{.’ inore than five months and during the said<\/p>\n
 might have undergone pain and agony. T he<\/p>\n
 .f7{fVri\u00bbbu’na1 has awarded a sum of R_s.E30,000\/- towards<\/p>\n
 ~-pain and sufferings and the same is inadequate and it<\/p>\n
needs to be enhanced, having regard to the nature of<\/p>\n
er?\/’<\/p>\n
4,<\/p>\n
the injuries sustained. nature and duration of the<\/p>\n
treatment taken by the appellant. Therefore, we it<\/p>\n
fit to award a sum of Rs.1.00.000\/~– under  _<\/p>\n
instead of Rs.60.000\/– awardedmhby  <\/p>\n
accordingly. it is awarded.\n<\/p>\n
9. The Tribunal has.’ awardedafv\u00abs1;m of,”<\/p>\n
Rs.30.000\/– towards ;_.medieal.:Ve\u00a7;pe’nsegd’wrkl,\/\/Lt_hve same is
\njust and reasonable ‘lit  interference.\n<\/p>\n
10.   a sum of
\nRs. 10,000  nourishing food and
\n“”sande is inadequate and it
\nIieedsvylitiollbe  reason that. the appellant<\/p>\n
has .t.aken”‘treatr’nent for more than five months and due<\/p>\n
.0 V’  \u00a7;ni.put’ati.on”ol”‘t’he left leg below the knee. he was not<\/p>\n
0′  Vin.ap.o’s.itior1_to discharge his duties and during the said<\/p>\n
pe-r_iocl.~heA.j’.rnight have spent. some reasonable amount<\/p>\n
 towards’ the conveyance and other expenses. Therefore.<\/p>\n
0′ ”-_V\\V\u00ab’\\’\/’C~~’C”1CCI”I’1 it fit to award a sum of Rs.20.000\/~ under the<\/p>\n
-‘said head instead of Rs.10,000\/~ awarded by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal and accordingly. it is awarded.<\/p>\n
‘9’\/,,..\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs. 10.000\/~ towards loss of income during the periodeof<\/p>\n
treatment. by taking the income of the <\/p>\n
Rs.2.000\/– per month. The sam__e….is_’ina.deC;Atiavte””ar1d  it”<\/p>\n
needs to be enhanced. having ::egardii’~_to<\/p>\n
occupation of the appeiiantia”1’1d due tothe a:inp.u.r;mon <\/p>\n
of his left leg he was not  to” dtschiarge his
\nduties. Therefore. wexdaire’-of  Vi\u20acW that. if
\nthe income  at Rs.2,500\/–\n<\/p>\n
per   assessed by the
\nTribu1jsiai.”it:A    andreasonabie. Accordingly,
\nwe talce  appeliant at Rs.2,500\/~ per<\/p>\n
month and forfsix rhvonths it comes to Rs.15.000\/–<\/p>\n
towards loss of income during the period of treatment<\/p>\n
 vbvF\u00a7s:..1~i0,000\/\u00bb awarded by the Tribunal and<\/p>\n
aceord._ir1g\u00a7ty~”. it is awarded.<\/p>\n
 The Tribunal has erred in not awarding any<\/p>\n
‘._c.ompensat.iori towards loss of amenities of iife and<\/p>\n
d ‘ “therefore, it needs to be awarded. it is not in dispute<\/p>\n
that. on account. of the injuries sustained by the<\/p>\n
appellant. in the said accident, he has undergone<\/p>\n
treatment for a period of five months as inpatiyerltjand<\/p>\n
his left. leg was amputated below the <\/p>\n
Doctor has assessed the disability  we<\/p>\n
accept the same. The appellant.\n<\/p>\n
disability throughout his life”;~.._Thereior.e_, -‘lit <\/p>\n
to award a sum of   loss of
\namenities of life and  <\/p>\n
13.    l in awarding
\nRs. 10,000].   and the same
\nis    be enhanced, for the
\nreasori’–t’,hat,l cost. of the artificial limb as<\/p>\n
on the l4d’a.te\u00bb.o’f haclc-ildent would be Rs.25,000\/–.<\/p>\n
  Aoleordingly’. we a’wa’1–d a sum of Rs.25,000\/- under the<\/p>\n
 *  of Rs.10.000\/- awarded by the<\/p>\n
Tribun val.    A:\n<\/p>\n
z The Tribunal has awarded a sum of<\/p>\n
ll”~_VRs.–l’l,68,OOO\/– towards loss of future earnings on<\/p>\n
 ” ~-‘account of the disability by taking the income of the<\/p>\n
appellant. at Rs.2,O0O\/A\u00bb per month with disability at<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
-9-<\/span><\/p>\n
50% and by adopting Multiplier of 14. The said amount<\/p>\n
awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and it nveeldpjsrto<\/p>\n
be modified. We have already assessed t.he.;1f_ <\/p>\n
the appellant at Rs.2.500\/– per_11″1Qnth_–‘a’n’d.:”ein’ee’-the  <\/p>\n
appellant is aged about 39 3:>’earfs’.*dt.he._’ <\/p>\n
Multiplier applicable to theevaae in hand.  <\/p>\n
of ‘l4′, as per the lavwpplaid bathe “Apex_iL3ourt in
\nthe case of Sarla  Vs. Delhi
\nTransport Cforippratiiplnl\u00e9iariad  in 2009
\nACJ 1298;.’  .a’pHpe1lant is taken at
\nRs.2.5OOV\/#ipe\ufb01rllllirigipbntii;;iirith”””disability at 50% and by
\napplyivngpll  the total loss of future<\/p>\n
earnings \u00a2”omies-t-o ARsV.lI2′.i25.OO0\/- (2.500\/W x 12 x 15 x<\/p>\n
l  50’s\/llOiO”}  Rs.1.68.000\/– awarded by the<\/p>\n
 Tr~ibun,lal..VanVd.accordingly. it is awarded.<\/p>\n
lfE$..Vdl\u00a7iaving regard to the facts and circumstances<\/p>\n
 of _the”ease as stated above, the impugned judgment and<\/p>\n
l Klawalrd passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified.<\/p>\n
d it ‘”‘The total Compensation payable Comes to Rs.4,65.000\/~<\/p>\n
and the breakup is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
V’_’m_~_w_’__d_~_,,,…\u00bb\u00bb<\/p>\n
~10-\n<\/p>\n
. Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 1,00.000\/~<\/p>\n
. Towards medical expenses Rs. 30,000.\/–<\/p>\n
. Towards conveyance. nourishing
\nfood and attendant Charges Rs.\n<\/p>\n
4-. Towards loss of income during the *  it 1′ <\/p>\n
C\u00bb.’>N>\u00e9—–\n<\/p>\n
period of treatment Rs: I};  ll\n<\/p>\n
5. Towards loss of amenities of life…  Rs. “5C.O0O’\/-  ” <\/p>\n
6. Towards purchase of artificialilieg\n<\/p>\n
7. Towards loss of future earnings  T <\/p>\n
16. Accordingly, the  is allow_edl’l and
\nthe impugned   _ passed by the
\nTribunal in MVCV  granting
\na”  of Rs.2.88.000\/–\n<\/p>\n
(enhanced   \u00a35 Rs. 177,000\/–). The
\nenhanced shall carry interest at 6% pa,
\nfrom theldatevvolf’ its realisation.<\/p>\n
 The respondent-Corporat.ion is directed to deposit<\/p>\n
‘ the_en.hanced=.e_ompen.sation. with interest, within four weeks<\/p>\n
ll   receipt of the copy of this judgment and<\/p>\n
award A ‘ 4’<\/p>\n
t3ut of the enhanced compensation of<\/p>\n
~, 50% with proportionate interest shall<\/p>\n
Tube invested in the name of the appellant. in Fixed<\/p>\n
.\u00bbw_a\u00bbW_\u00bb_’_____W,_..\u00bb\u00bb<\/p>\n
deposit. in any Nationalized or Scheduled bank, for a<\/p>\n
period of five years and renewable for another five ‘years.<\/p>\n
The appellant shall be entitled to withdraw <\/p>\n
accrued on it, quarterly.\n<\/p>\n
The remaining 50% with’-._ prsQp.e:’rtio.ria.ltle li1″i:’t~e_re:3tAl<\/p>\n
shall be released in favour’hf-._appe’il::irat.V irrl:riied\u00bbiate1y. 0ln,i*<\/p>\n
deposit by the respondent~C0rpQ_rettiQn_,_V<\/p>\n
ljraw the award!    ll ‘<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Imthiaz S\/O Mohamad Peer vs The Managing Director Bmtc Depot on 1 December, 2009 Author: N.K.Patil And Gowda IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTIC’E-._B.SREEN1″VAS1\u00a75 V DATED THIS THE 151 DAY OF DECEMBEZR. 20Q9t _’ I PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE ‘V ‘ F. M.F.A.No. 669 origgoa BETWEEN: Imthiaz, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-102182","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nImthiaz S\/O Mohamad Peer vs The Managing Director Bmtc Depot on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/imthiaz-so-mohamad-peer-vs-the-managing-director-bmtc-depot-on-1-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Imthiaz S\/O Mohamad Peer vs The Managing Director Bmtc Depot on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/imthiaz-so-mohamad-peer-vs-the-managing-director-bmtc-depot-on-1-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-02T15:43:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/imthiaz-so-mohamad-peer-vs-the-managing-director-bmtc-depot-on-1-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/imthiaz-so-mohamad-peer-vs-the-managing-director-bmtc-depot-on-1-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Imthiaz S\/O Mohamad Peer vs The Managing Director Bmtc Depot on 1 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-02T15:43:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/imthiaz-so-mohamad-peer-vs-the-managing-director-bmtc-depot-on-1-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1563,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/imthiaz-so-mohamad-peer-vs-the-managing-director-bmtc-depot-on-1-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/imthiaz-so-mohamad-peer-vs-the-managing-director-bmtc-depot-on-1-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/imthiaz-so-mohamad-peer-vs-the-managing-director-bmtc-depot-on-1-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Imthiaz S\/O Mohamad Peer vs The Managing Director Bmtc Depot on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-02T15:43:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/imthiaz-so-mohamad-peer-vs-the-managing-director-bmtc-depot-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/imthiaz-so-mohamad-peer-vs-the-managing-director-bmtc-depot-on-1-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/imthiaz-so-mohamad-peer-vs-the-managing-director-bmtc-depot-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Imthiaz S\/O Mohamad Peer vs The Managing Director Bmtc Depot on 1 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Imthiaz S\/O Mohamad Peer vs The Managing Director Bmtc Depot on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/imthiaz-so-mohamad-peer-vs-the-managing-director-bmtc-depot-on-1-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Imthiaz S\/O Mohamad Peer vs The Managing Director Bmtc Depot on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/imthiaz-so-mohamad-peer-vs-the-managing-director-bmtc-depot-on-1-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-02T15:43:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/imthiaz-so-mohamad-peer-vs-the-managing-director-bmtc-depot-on-1-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/imthiaz-so-mohamad-peer-vs-the-managing-director-bmtc-depot-on-1-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Imthiaz S\/O Mohamad Peer vs The Managing Director Bmtc Depot on 1 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-02T15:43:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/imthiaz-so-mohamad-peer-vs-the-managing-director-bmtc-depot-on-1-december-2009"},"wordCount":1563,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/imthiaz-so-mohamad-peer-vs-the-managing-director-bmtc-depot-on-1-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/imthiaz-so-mohamad-peer-vs-the-managing-director-bmtc-depot-on-1-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/imthiaz-so-mohamad-peer-vs-the-managing-director-bmtc-depot-on-1-december-2009","name":"Imthiaz S\/O Mohamad Peer vs The Managing Director Bmtc Depot on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-02T15:43:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/imthiaz-so-mohamad-peer-vs-the-managing-director-bmtc-depot-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/imthiaz-so-mohamad-peer-vs-the-managing-director-bmtc-depot-on-1-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/imthiaz-so-mohamad-peer-vs-the-managing-director-bmtc-depot-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Imthiaz S\/O Mohamad Peer vs The Managing Director Bmtc Depot on 1 December, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102182","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=102182"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102182\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=102182"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=102182"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=102182"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}