B S CHANDRAPPA Vs. SHOBHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions and appeals are preferred by the owner of tempo bearing registration No. MEZ 9797 which was involved in the accident, being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 27. 8. 2001, passed in m. V. C. No. 1257 of 1988 and connected cases on the file of the Addl. M. A. C. T. , udupi apportioning the liability between tempo and the bus bearing registration no. CTX 9373 in proportion of 25:75. As the only question involved in these petitions and the appeals is the correctness or otherwise of the apportionment of liability in the above stated ratio, these petitions and the appeals are taken together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THERE is no appeal by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation, nor is there any appeal by the insurance company questioning its liability vis-a-vis the bus involved in the accident which, admittedly, is insured by it. All these petitions and appeals have been filed by the owner of Tempo calling in question the apportionment of liability by the Tribunal on the ground of contributory negligence by the driver of Tempo.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel Mr. K. T. Gurudeva Prasad who appears for the petitioners and the appellants as also Mr. H. G. Ramesh, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.